WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
This page intentionally left blank
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGG...
18 downloads
628 Views
830KB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
This page intentionally left blank
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE OVERCOMING ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY
MARTIN KLUBECK, MICHAEL LANGTHORNE, AND DONALD PADGETT
PRAEGER An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC
Copyright © 2010 by Martin Klubeck, Michael Langthorne, and Donald Padgett All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file with the Library of Congress ISBN 978-0-313-38022-8 : hard cover ISBN 978-0-313-38023-5: eBook 14 13 12 11 10
1 2 3 4 5
This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the many people who contributed to this book by providing precious feedback on the writing, the concepts and the goals. Mark Welch for editing suggestions and proofreading Irving Klubeck and John Voss for insights and reflections Andrew Pautler for computer graphic assistance
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Introduction: How to Use This Book
xi
Part 1
1
Calling All Champions!
1. Why Do We Fail?
3
2. Laying the Foundation: Understanding Organizational Immaturity
9
3. First Steps: Understanding Ourselves
15
4. How to Do the Impossible
21
Interlude
35
Part 2 Identifying the Obstacles and Learning How to Overcome Them
49
5. Using Performance Management Tools to Shape and Monitor both Personal and Organization Growth
53
6. Like Champion Athletes, Your Champions Need Development Plans to Maintain Peak Performance
59
7. Need Additional Champions? Try These Hiring Strategies
69
VIII
CONTENTS
8. Creating a Culture of Recognition: Build an Environment for Champions to Thrive Part 3 Mature Behaviors: Develop As Many As You Can! 9. Putting Strategy into Strategic Planning 10. Effective Communication: Open Channels at All Levels
75
81 83 99
11. Using a Policy Framework: Establishing a Model
105
12. Project Management Methodology: Setting the Bar
113
13. Using Process Management to Prepare for Cultural Change
119
14. Tracking Your Organization’s Growth with the Help of Annual Internal Assessments
129
Part 4 Bigger Challenges: Taking It to the Next Level
135
15. Getting Organized with a Process Asset Library
139
16. Sharing the Wealth: Career Planning/Coaching
147
17. Setting and Maintaining Expectations: Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
153
18. It’s Time to Own Up: What Is Quality and Why Measure It?
159
19. Metrics: An Organization’s Maturity Barometer
171
20. The Final Coaching Session
181
Appendix 1 Sample Assessment Tools Immaturity Self Assessment Organizational Health Survey
187 187 190
Appendix 2 Tools for Developing a Policy Framework Policy Standards Processes and Procedures Assessments
191 191 193 194 196
CONTENTS
IX
Appendix 3 Metrics Implementation Guide Structure and Rigor—Components of the Implementation Guide
199
Appendix 4 Training Plans Develop/Modify Training Plans
205 205
Appendix 5
213
How to Write a Living Strategic Plan
199
Bibliography
217
Index
221
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK
There are more books than anyone can hope to read on how to improve your organization. Our personal book shelves contain dozens, each with a different “powerful” methodology. The latest, and most inspirational books, give examples of leaders and organizations that have created something new, been innovative, or implemented impressive improvements. Feel-good success stories. We personally like these books; they give us hope. Other books on our shelves give prescriptions for leadership. We are hungry for answers and willing to find gems of brilliance anywhere. But why should you read this book? Why should it be on your bookshelf? This book addresses the reason many of the attempts at organizational improvement fail. This book offers a fresh look at the assumptions and misconceptions we unquestioningly follow and function under when it comes to organizational change. Perhaps the biggest misconception is the belief that when an improvement effort fails, it’s due to a lack of commitment by the leader. The truth is it is rarely the leader’s fault when a change effort fails; it is usually her job and reputation on the line, not that of the workforce. As the leader, she has the most to lose if an organization-wide improvement effort fails. Why would she not be fully committed? Most failures are also not because of picking the wrong “method du jour.” Any of the methodologies should prove to be useful in some way; they all have merits or anecdotal evidence of succeeding somewhere.
XII
INTRODUCTION
An organization can be incapable of organization-wide improvement at a given point in time. Simply put, change efforts will fail when an organization is incapable of change. Our goal is to help you resolve this conundrum, and along the way add a number of tools to your improvement toolbox. We want you to determine, in advance of high expenditures, the probabilities of your organization succeeding at the changes you envision. Consider this simple and common sense principle: Don’t try to change someone into something they can’t or don’t want to be, such as making a professional basketball center out of a jockey, or a jockey out of a sumo wrestler. We should use the same common sense with our organizational change efforts. Rather than assume we just need to pick the right change model, we have to first assess the ability of an organization to make a large-scale change. If your organization is incapable of organization-wide change, we don’t advocate simply giving up until some unknown future time. We merely suggest attacking the task in a very different manner. Rather than wrestle with the whole organization, work on smaller subsets of the organization that may be capable of some of the improvements you want the whole organization to benefit from. While our message may seem to be a harbinger of doom—“most organization-wide improvement efforts fail”—we actually want to share some good news. In the pages that follow, we explore: How to determine if your organization is capable of organizationwide change before spending any money. If your organization is able and ready to change, how you can still benefit by first identifying areas of focus. If your organization is immature—currently incapable of significant change—how to still make progress and grow your organization. Not only will you see improvements, but you will help move the organization to be able and ready to embrace broader change in the future. Everything is cyclical; the cyclical nature of organizational improvement efforts can either be a sign of the repetitive nature of our problems, or a signal that we are stuck in a rut. Organizational development and improvement has been a hot topic for decades. From Henry Ford at the dawn of the twentieth century to Marcus Buckingham’s First, Break All the Rules,1 we are both fascinated and frustrated with finding ways to improve how we function as organi-
INTRODUCTION
XIII
zations. There is, however, one constant in the organizational improvement arena, and that is who gets blamed when an improvement effort fails. The terms we use to describe such failures may change—they didn’t “walk the talk,” they didn’t “take charge,” they didn’t “take ownership,” they were not “committed.” But the who has remained constant. Regardless of the failings, the scapegoat has always been leadership. The persons in charge are expected to fall on their swords in abject apology for their failings to implement the latest organizational improvement fad. (That, at least, is what rankand-file would like to see happen.) No wonder leadership would rather rearrange the organizational chart one more time than to invest hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to bring in “experts” who will implement their signature organizational improvement methodology. If the intervention fails (which most are likely to—60 percent to 75 percent according to multiple studies), it is the leader’s job on the line. The expert can pull any one of the many excuses for failure out of his bag and even support it with evidence. But the evidence is devoid of factual proof. The claim that the leader was not committed enough is comforting to the board of directors who fires him, but it doesn’t hold any factual weight because there will have been no predefined level of commitment with requisite behaviors to measure against. No matter how much the leader does, if the effort fails, it wasn’t enough. It’s time to stop blaming leaders for failures of organizational improvement efforts. It’s time to stop blaming anyone, and start approaching the idea of improving organizations from a proactive, knowledgeable position. Another constant of organizational improvement efforts is that they all require the organization to change in large and dramatic ways. Very rarely is the concept of making small changes to effect big differences used in organizational improvement; most leaders apparently have trouble internalizing the concept of deriving meaningful results from small targeted initiatives. Those leaders tend to the opposite view—they believe it’s best to attack the entire enterprise and every nook and cranny in an organization’s structure to make appreciable progress. They want to eat the whole elephant in one sitting. Perhaps the last constant in organizational improvement endeavors is the illogical belief that all organizations can change. Like wellmeaning spouses who believe they can change their significant others, we continue to delude ourselves. The truth is, even if we accept the philosophical argument that everyone can change, we
XIV
INTRODUCTION
intuitively know that not everyone will. The willpower may be there, as well as the dedication and commitment of the leaders, and still the change efforts may fail. Even if our talents and skills are exceptional, we can be foiled by numerous behaviors, traits, and attributes (the corporate culture) that make change impossible, at least on the “planned timeline” using the “planned improvement method.” Organizations are living entities made up of many other living organisms. Any given organization, at any given time, may very well be incapable of change at the organizational (enterprise) level. Of course, we can change the organizational chart and move people physically to different office spaces. We can change the furniture, add windows, and assign parking spaces. These superficial changes can be forced on any organization quite easily. When we refer to organizational improvement or organizational change, we mean change that is measurable and meaningful. Immaturity (the inability to change) isn’t a disease or something to be eradicated; it’s a state of development that needs to be understood and leveraged.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK How can you best make use of this book? Whether you are part of top management, middle management, an internal change agent, or a staff member, you will find that this book presents ways to put these concepts to work in your organization. No one is too far out of the loop to have positive results. You Are Top Management You could work this material yourself, but you have the authority to bring in a consultant. If you choose to bring in a consultant, we recommend that you quiz them on their knowledge of organizational change; and further, that you direct them first to get to know your whole organization, and then to focus on specific areas for specific reasons. The consultant must be able to provide a report describing: (1) what areas seem ripe for what types of improvement activities; (2) how he intends to develop those areas; and (3) how he will demonstrate staff internalization of mature behaviors. In other words, the consultant should provide a contract that goes far beyond
INTRODUCTION
XV
explaining the details of his rates and travel expense reimbursements. Whether you bring in a consultant or not, nothing prevents you from discussing the concepts in this book with your middle managers. You Are Middle Management You are in the best position to work this material, first by finding people in your area that are enthused by and want to pursue certain aspects of transformation, and second by working through your peers, discovering which other middle managers are enthused enough to bring this quest for improvement into their own groups. You Are the “Designated” Internal Change Agent Vaya con Dios; you have our blessings. In many organizations that have a designated internal change agent, everyone from middle management down are often wary of what “harebrained scheme” that agent is going to try to pull off. And in a tough economic climate, there will be deep fears that the real and ultimate goal is downsizing. This, of course, makes your job all the more difficult. In fact, here’s a recommendation: if you are ever offered a job as a change agent, make sure that your title has nothing to do with “bringing change.” Here’s another free recommendation: don’t apply for a position of change agent unless you’ve had several successful years in sales or coaching. We sincerely hope that the material in this book can assist you and lead you to many positive outcomes. You Are a Worker Who Cares You are in a staff position. The people around you either do very similar work, or you tend to be part of a team where everyone does his portion of project work. Either way, if you are tired of the immaturity you see around you, find out who else shares your view and start an “improvement club.” Share this book, discuss it, and find out who has energy to work on specific areas. And be honest with each other, because it’s next to impossible to influence others to do something you don’t fully believe in yourself. You have to demonstrate that you are actually taking the same steps you want them to take. You want others to form a “club” in order to grow the interest and enthusiasm. If you are part of a group that wants to mature
XVI
INTRODUCTION
and is willing to take action, we guarantee your supervisor will notice. If you are part of a group that loves the status quo and shows no interest in being proactive, then talk around, find others in different groups, and bring them into the “club.” NOTE 1. Buckingham & Coffman, First, Break All the Rules.
PART 1
CALLING ALL CHAMPIONS!
This is it. What you’ve been looking for—and more. Within this section you will find all of the theory, background, and research you’ll need to convince yourself that there is a way to do the impossible. Why is it impossible? We cover that and how to get beyond any failures you may have experienced in your past attempts to move your organization out of a state of immaturity. Your heart has been in the right place. You’ve tried to push your organization to a state of “continuous improvement,” just like the literature says. You (or your leadership) hired the consultants, mandated new policy, enthusiastically joined the call for change, memo’d everyone about the urgency of the need for change. And now you are frustrated with the inability of your organization to improve. No worries. Just call a Champion.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1
WHY DO WE FAIL?
You know you’re in an immature organization when top administrators start using “management-speak” you noticed in a mass market magazine six months ago.
Most people know, instinctively or empirically, that an organization’s culture has a lot to say about the organization’s ability to change. But even in the midst of this awareness, culture, because of its complexities, tends to be overlooked as the key to success. If not accidentally overlooked, many times it’s purposely ignored, and the management-focus or consultant-focus zeroes in, almost instantaneously, to “fixing the problem.” Instead of dealing with culture, many “experts” write books and give advice on how to (supposedly) sidestep it, or render it a “non player.” This is normally presented as “how to overcome resistance to change” or “how to gain buy-in.” The simplistic (and oft-used) answer is to change the organizational structure—in other words, rearrange the deck chairs. Unfortunately, changing structure only appears to address “resistance to change.” It does nothing to move the organization toward a level of maturity that allows, and over time, encourages change in the context of the organization’s normal day-to-day operations. Methods of attacking the problem—“management by objective,” “top-down improvement,” “re-engineering,” “TQM,” “lean,” and so on—all suffer from one common ailment. They all attack cultural symptoms but do little to actually change the environment or develop the ability of the organization to take on enterprise-wide change. Culture is at the
4
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
foundation of why organizations fail in their efforts to change. Culture dictates whether the organization, as a living, complex organism, is either capable or incapable of enterprise-wide change. ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY: IS THE ORGANIZATION CAPABLE OF ENTERPRISE-WIDE CHANGE? Consultants and change agents offer a myriad of tools and techniques for moving organizations toward ever higher levels of productivity. Organizational leaders pick from validated and tested quality-initiative programs. The organization invests significant resources—time, money, and effort—in an attempt to ensure success. Leaders are “trained,” they sometimes sign “contracts of commitment,” and almost always publicly promise to do such colloquial things as “talk the talk and walk the walk.” Unfortunately, statistics show that all of this well-meant effort is more likely to fail than succeed. It’s worth repeating: enterprise-wide improvement efforts are more likely to fail than succeed. Rarely is the problem the quality-improvement model chosen— they all have merits. Many times the barrier is simply the inability of the organization to take on the improvement change in the first place! It is time to stop blaming leadership for not achieving the impossible. It is time to realize that if an organization is sufficiently immature, failure is almost guaranteed no matter how committed leadership is, no matter how much money is thrown at consultants, or how “theoretically effective” the improvement model is. In general, the statistics look bad for quality interventions. It is far more likely that an organization’s large-scale, quality-improvement effort will fail. Various researchers found the same disheartening results—the likelihood of failure is well over 50 percent. Spector & Beer noted that total quality management (TQM) efforts tend to fall below expectations—in fact, they reported that “75% of TQM efforts fail to meet expectations.”1 Another organizational researcher found a 56 to 70 percent failure rate for trying to implement change due to mergers.2 The fact is, most enterprise-change efforts fail to achieve expectations. But wait—there’s more bad news. Along with the high failure rate comes an expensive price tag. Organizations have to invest time, manpower, space, fees, and they need to take on considerable risk to undertake a quality-improvement program. Leadership has to sincerely commit to the effort, giving up a lot of time (usually from
WHY DO WE FAIL?
5
those with the highest salaries in the organization) and put their reputations on the line. The organization normally pays high-priced consultants to provide organization-wide training and to facilitate the change. Most of the quality enhancements, such as “process definitions,” “time-motion studies,” or “organizational restructuring,” require significant investment. Besides the monies and time lost in an unsuccessful effort, there is also the very real risk that the organization will not want to try another improvement effort again anytime soon. The workforce learns quickly to avoid repeated failures and will find ways to minimize the risk involved. This is natural and healthy, but it is also deadly to future improvement efforts. It’s not only the workforce’s reluctance to “give it another shot,” but a real aversion to being “bit again.” The more “failures to implement” means less chance for success in the future. It becomes a downward spiral, easily feeding on its own past. These failures include not fully implementing or realizing the promised results, even if the effort is “declared” a success by management or consultants. The conditions of failure result in more than a waste of resources; the conditions also result in “a lack of willingness by employees to participate in improvement initiatives, and quality [is] seen as an added cost and something to be avoided.”3 In an ideal world, consultants would provide a money-back guarantee. Based on historical data, those consultants would be working for free more than half of the time, so it’s unlikely we’ll be seeing that guarantee any time soon. But it would make sense that, if there is so much at risk, change agents would offer, and leaders would demand, an objective assessment of the likelihood of success before embarking on such a journey. This is a simple first step of determining if the organization has a realistic chance of beating the odds. Remarkably, this measurement of readiness is not a normal part of the process. If leadership demonstrates the proper level of commitment and the organization has sufficient funds and resources, then the socalled change consultants will gladly jump in to give change a try. To ignore or hide from leadership the possibility that an organization is incapable of succeeding is either negligence or gross incompetence. And for a consultant to continue accepting client money after recognizing a low probability of success is unethical. If an organization is not ready for change or if the culture is incapable of an enterprise-wide change initiative, the organization as a whole is immature. It is this immaturity that should be addressed before any processes are re-designed, trainings conducted, or structures re-engineered.
6
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Organizational Immaturity can be equated to the lack of ability for change throughout the culture of the company. To paraphrase an old joke, “How many consultants does it take to change an organization?” Answer: “Only one, but the organization has to really want to change.” But if the organization is found to be immature, the focus of, and planning for, change can be shifted. The focus can be shifted from plodding along toward failure to assisting the whole enterprise reach a state of change readiness. This is a daunting task. To move an organization purposefully out of Organizational Immaturity requires a culture change. A simpler, more manageable option is to use a “change model” that does not require organization-wide implementation, but can be introduced and implemented in specific departments or units where the environment is ripe to implement real change. This option will be explored in more detail throughout the book. But do you need this book? Is your organization suffering from Organizational Immaturity? Before we delve into the “how” of conducting an assessment, it is logical to first fully understand the importance and benefits of assessing Organizational Immaturity. This requires looking first at the classic methods of implementing a quality program and understanding why they so frequently fail. Every change model has some basic concepts in common. Traditional change models require the organization to change— not a little bit at a time, not in pockets, but as a whole. The basic premise is that the organization needs to show progress toward an enterprise-wide improvement criterion, be it training plans, development plans, or strategic plans. Whether we’re focusing on process improvement, creating a policy framework, or creating a metrics program, leadership, with its perspective of the whole, wants organization-wide improvement. IS IMMATURITY TO BLAME FOR FAILURES OF CLASSIC MODELS? Is It Possible That Leaders Are Not To Blame? The simple answer to the question, “Are leaders to blame for quality-initiative failures?” is “Sometimes.” Research has shown the main reasons for failure of quality-improvement programs were implementation problems and lack of commitment by leadership. One of the reasons leadership gets the majority of the blame is the
WHY DO WE FAIL?
7
convenience—it doesn’t require a deep understanding of human interactions or analysis of the culture. It only requires a finger to point. In the military, from ancient history to modern day, the leader is required to “take the blame,” proving full accountability for the success of the mission, the safety of the troops, and the power of truly being in charge. Even in the most extreme cases of seppuku, or present-day resignations of generals, the leaders were not the major cause of failure. They take the blame as an act of honor and integrity, but no one actually thinks it was the leader who failed to take the hill, stand his or her ground, or drop munitions on target. In the corporate world, though, we find varying degrees of integrity—leaders don’t fall on their swords (some do resign, lately with large bonuses) and everyone does blame them for the organization’s failures. Some researchers are finding that there may be other variables that deserve a lion’s share of the blame. Many re-engineering efforts fail at all levels of the organization due to an inability to identify and manage risk. Or Is Culture To Blame? At least one researcher broke new ground when he pointed out that one of the major reasons that 50 to 89 percent of mergers fail was the difficulty in merging cultures. He went on to note that the key to creating a new organization is to deal with the existing internal cultures.4 Another study used five cases of organizations that lacked commitment to TQM ideals.5 The conclusion? Organizations planning a TQM initiative should review the five case studies to ensure the organization doesn’t repeat the mistakes covered. This is inadequate (and self-serving), as it should be intuitively clear that the five case studies could not have covered all possible causes of failure. Every organization is essentially unique. Even if the type of business is common, the cultural dynamics of the organization will be unique. Even if two companies produce the same item, using the same machinery, and following the same processes, the human element ensures that the companies would be uniquely different. Each person in an organization brings his or her own passion and individuality to the equation, helping to build an organization unlike any other. An organization’s culture isn’t really “to blame,” but it is paramount that the culture is taken into account when attempting to change the organization. It is more than something to overcome or bypass. The culture defines the very thing to be changed; the organization is better
8
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
described by its culture than it will ever be by its products, machinery, or the processes it employs. By our definition, if the organization is immature, any organization-wide change effort will fail. For an organization to be able to change, its culture must change. Organizational Immaturity—a state of being that exists when an organization is incapable of enterprise-wide improvement.
NOTES 1. Spector & Beer, Beyond TQM Programmes, 63–71; Shields, Transforming Organizations: Methods for Accelerating Culture Change Processes, 105–115; and Atkinson, Managing Resistance to Change, 14–19. 2. Atkinson, Managing Resistance, 14–19. 3. Dale, Characteristics of Organizations Not Committed to Total Quality, 377–384. 4. Shields, Transforming Organizations, 105–115 5. See note 3 above.
CHAPTER 2
LAYING THE FOUNDATION: UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY
You know you’re in an immature organization when a request for a decision can only flow upward all the way to the top, either because the staff is totally dependent on the leader, or because the leader’s inflexible command-and-control characteristics have left the organization feeling unempowered.
How can you determine if it is unrealistic for your organization to attempt enterprise-wide change? One of the major foretellers of Organizational Immaturity is culture. As a living, complex organism, an organization has a personality, moods, attitudes, and values—in other words, a definitive culture. Any assessment tool must take into account the whole organization and take a hard look at that culture. A holistic assessment is necessary as we have to determine the ability to take on massive change. Most definitions of change readiness are in terms of how well the organization’s processes are defined, used, and managed. Unfortunately this ignores the complexities of the organization’s very real culture. The culture is an emotion-based environment of politics, insecurities, egos, strained resources, and people doing double duty while others are on vacation and people who are in the middle of messy divorces or sick children or elderly parents. This oversight of the realities of culture is normally coupled with a glaring lack of measurement of immaturity.
10
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
A logical question may be: if current assessment methodologies leave out identification of immaturity, is the concept of Organizational Immaturity really important? The answer is a resounding Yes. What’s missing is a means of determining Organizational Immaturity early in the effort. The most popular assessment and improvement models omit any allowance for an organization being unable to change. TQM, ISO 9000, Lean, Six Sigma, and Quality Circles all provide guidelines, standards, and tools for measuring, assessing, analyzing, and improving the many ways things are done. But none of them includes an assessment to see if the organization might be too immature to adopt those methodologies in the first place. Although researchers have not hesitated to declare that most business process improvement programs end in failure,1 no one proposes a means for determining the likelihood of failure before investing in change. Taking account of an organization’s ability to change is a go/no-go proposition and should be conducted before any large expenditure (just as with standard project risk management). Although there is a distinct difference between an organization that is unable to change and one unwilling to change, the resulting failure of change efforts is identical. It’s not worth trying to determine whether the failure is due to inability or unwillingness—in many respects one will cause the other. And both are symptomatic behaviors of immaturity. Some organizations have failed to improve because they have shown a surprisingly intense ability to resist change. If resistance is strong enough, it will cripple and kill the organization’s ability to carry out an enterprise-wide change effort. Pascale, Millemann, and Gioja in their article, “Changing the Way We Change,” did a great job of giving an example in plain, simple English. “The events that triggered transformation efforts at Sears, Shell, and the Army were quite different. In all three organizations, however, the 800-lb gorilla that impaired performance and stifled change was culture.” They further explained that culture is very hard to get a handle on, and that none of the existing information on change helped in figuring out how to “fix it.” They were frustrated because in the classic view, “everything could be fixed,” culture right along with broken processes and misaligned procedures.2 Culture cannot be fixed. Instead, it must be understood and matured. A five-year-old’s inability to open an IRA and save for the future is not an issue to be dealt with using revolutionary change efforts; it requires evolutionary change. In other words, maturity takes time.
WHY DO WE FAIL?
11
A DIFFERENT FOCUS: ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY In The Path to Corporate Responsibility, Simon Zadek provided a lot of information about the way organizations learn. Accepting that an organizationisalivingorganismthatcanlearnsupportsthepremisethat it may also be too immature to take on certain efforts at a given point in its growth. Zadek supports this premise with his stages of learning. First is the defensive stage in which the organization fights the change (whatever it is). Basically, the culture starts by resisting change and defending the status quo. Zadek argues that all organizations go through this first phase, the difference being how long they spend in this phase before moving on to the next. In an organization with even a moderate level of maturity, he sees the first phase as a transitory and normal function of growth.3 Unfortunately, many organizations may not move in the simple progression of learning he proposes. Instead of moving from “resisting” to a state in which the organization reluctantly follows the new policies, an immature organization could just as easily move further away from compliance, partly because it is resisting, and partly because it is simply incapable of performing in the “new” way. The best reason to bother with assessments is the potential (often substantial) savings an organization can realize by first determining if it is likely to succeed at a quality-change initiative. It is very expensive to attempt a quality-improvement program. Because it is more likely to fail than to succeed, the risk level is high for losing funds and future support. If the reason for failure can be traced to Organizational Immaturity, then the choice of tool, consultant, or the level of commitment of the leadership will not matter—the effort is doomed to fail. If the predictor of failure can be traced to Organizational Immaturity, a great deal of improvement can still be achieved, but in planned and subtle ways. “READY AND ABLE” VERSUS ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY—A COMPARISON A ready-and-able organization accepts measurement as part of its overall management. An immature organization does not measure; it resists measuring, neglects measuring and reporting even when assigned, or makes excuses about how measuring uses too many resources that could instead be delivering customer services. A ready-and-able organization is market/user driven. It measures what current customers want next, what potential customers want that the organization isn’t currently offering or is failing to promote.
12
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
An immature organization talks about being market driven, but then it tries to define what the market “needs” rather than what the market wants. People can have the Model T in any color—so long as it’s black. Henry Ford U.S. automobile industrialist (1863–1947)
In a ready-and-able organization, decisions are made at the level where the knowledge resides. Although the VP of Finance may have questions about one of the organization’s lines of business, he does not try to make decisions for that line of business. But in an immature organization, decisions are made only at the top and empowerment is either an unknown concept or just hot air. In an immature organization, decisions are often revisited, overturned, or objected to after the fact by parties who should not be “voting” in the first place because the decision areas are out of their realm. In a ready-and-able organization, management focuses on strategic issues, delegating the operational. In immature organizations, management spends the majority of its time on operational issues (particularly problems), thereby disempowering middle managers who are closer to the staff and the deliverables. In a ready-and-able organization, rapid decision making does not equal “shooting from the hip,” because the right kinds of knowledge have been shared among the people needing to influence and ultimately make the decision. In an immature organization, decision making is generally slow, cumbersome, and often mysterious because it takes a long time to locate the right sources of knowledge within the organization. When decisions come rapidly in an immature organization, the decision-making process usually screams “react first, investigate later,” and is emotionally driven rather than based on actual knowledge. CHANGING OUR PARADIGMS When an organization is identified as immature, the focus of the improvement effort can be shifted from an enterprise-wide quality model to helping the organization reach a state of readiness. Over-
WHY DO WE FAIL?
13
coming the current paradigms of quality improvement requires the following steps, both from consultants and leadership: • Accept that failure is likely. • Accept that failure may be due to an organization’s inability to change. • Assess the organization’s capability for change through its culture. • If the organization is immature, • focus on assisting the organization to mature to a state of readiness, or • use an improvement model that does not require enterprisewide change. Unless the leadership community awakens to the possibility that an organization may be incapable of change due to its state of immaturity, leaders will continue to embark on efforts most likely doomed to fail. Unwarranted persistence will create ill will toward quality programs, and eventually threaten the future of improvement initiatives. It is reckless and negligent behavior (often ego driven) to start an enterprise-wide improvement effort without first considering the ability of the organization to succeed. NOTES 1. Varghese, Resolving the Process Paradox, 13–21. 2. Pascale, Millemann, and Gioja, “Changing the Way We Change,” 128–139. 3. Zadek, The Path to Corporate Responsibility, 125.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 3
FIRST STEPS: UNDERSTANDING OURSELVES
You know you’re in an immature organization when one or more senior leaders regularly circumvent internal processes (and no one challenges them).
BEGIN WITH AN ASSESSMENT Why assess? To take off leadership’s rose-colored glasses? No. Most leaders sense their organization’s maturity (or lack thereof), though sometimes they don’t want to talk about it. The best reason to assess is to have a starting point for meaningful discussions. This in itself goes against normal management behavior. To tell a leader that we want to identify a problem so we can sit down and talk about it, rather than fix it, goes against the norm. Remember, in an immature organization it’s the leadership and not the managers that want to “fix” things. If our theory that an organization is unable to take on enterprise-wide change is correct, then we must address the issue of how to identify this state. It would be irresponsible to present a hypothesis of this nature without at least attempting to define a method of identifying when the condition (immaturity) exists, and to what extent. NOTICE IMMATURITY IN AVOIDANCE BEHAVIORS One way of determining immaturity is through the assessment of avoidance behaviors. Avoidance behavior, as an area of interest in
16
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
psychology, deals with an individual’s maturity, but also offers excellent insight that can be adapted to organizations. If the premise that an organization is a complex living organism is accepted, then the further premise that an organization can behave in ways comparable to other complex living organisms should be logical. This doesn’t seem too much of a stretch as humans create and sustain organizations everywhere in the world—they’re all manmade. Avoidance behaviors can be used to discern the level to which an organization is capable of an enterprise-wide change effort. Some of the possible specific behaviors that point to immaturity are: • • • • • • • • • • • •
Avoiding change Avoiding long-range planning/thinking Avoiding responsibility (accountability/blame) Avoiding action Avoiding risk Avoiding short term/tactical project planning Avoiding adherence to a project-planning methodology Avoiding the execution of formal performance reviews Avoiding measures/data Avoiding conflict Avoiding communicating upward Avoiding open communication (secrecy and information hoarding)
Many times these avoidance behaviors are manifested and identified by the level of comfort an organization has with the status quo. Immature organizations will put energy into resisting change rather than finding out whether the change could benefit them. Immature organizations will work hard to mask inefficiencies rather than address them. While the catchall of “resistance to change” would include avoidance behaviors designed to maintain the status quo, by looking at specific avoidance behaviors, the culture’s resistance to change can be more readily identified—sometimes even pinpointed— with a high degree of accuracy. Another generalized area of avoidance is around communications. When employees communicate freely, an organization is likely to be open to change. But more than sheer quantity of open communication, it’s the quality of such communication that is important. What does the organization feel safe talking about? If you aren’t sure, eavesdrop in the lunchroom, on the factory floor, or slowly cruise the hallways. Consider what you hear—the ideas, the kinds of words
LAYING THE FOUNDATION: UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY
17
used (neutral, positive, or negative), and the tone of voices. And reluctance to use studied factual data to describe itself goes a long ways toward proving the inability of an organization to take on an improvement effort. Rather than trying to capture whether the organization is resistant to change, or how resistant it is (as all organizations resist change to some degree), look at the organization’s avoidance behaviors. Not only will these be good indicators of the immaturity level, but they will also help guide you to possible areas for change later when you are looking for Champions. MEASURE IMMATURITY We’ve included tools in the appendix for performing a self-assessment. We recommend you use them in the order offered—first the immaturity self assessment and then, the organizational health survey. The immaturity self assessment is a very simple survey tool with only three possible answers: “yes,” “no,” or “don’t know.” The questions help paint a picture of the organization’s view of change— partly from an historical perspective and partly from a readiness view. It is mostly an evidence-based assessment that looks for any existing proof that change is a viable option. The second assessment tool, the organizational health survey is a more direct read of the culture of an organization. The questions are geared toward relationships and communications. Each question asks about the respondents’ views of their relationships with their supervisors, and asks only for a “true” or “false” response. When you use these two assessment tools together, they provide a good internal view of the organization’s maturity and health. We call this the “InnerView.” The InnerView should be repeated annually to provide a deep view from the inside of the organization. This is an excellent measuring stick of the progress toward being ready, willing, and able to embrace change. If you are willing to set aside the idea of making enterprise-wide changes, and prepared to focus only on the areas that show readiness, annual assessments will be useful in targeting those areas. The InnerView lacks one key ingredient—a grading rubric. We purposely avoided identifying a “score” or level, or a method to grade an organization. Rather, the tools were designed to provide insight to the organization’s ability to take on process improvements and to change.
18
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
We found that one of the inherent problems with assessments, especially in immature organizations, is leadership’s eagerness, even need, to fix things. This compulsion is not lessened when there isn’t anything broken. By not delivering a score, our tools channel leadership to use the feedback to discuss the status, direction, and potential for growth within each of the organization’s core areas. How the organization deals with this unique view of the results actually begins to set the stage for change, and good facilitation is critical for this process. Facilitation by a neutral party helps ensure that everyone participates, but that none of the discussion devolves into solving problems (real or perceived). Of course, you as the organizational change agent may be asked to determine whether the organization “passed” or “failed” the assessment. Hold off as long as you can, and redirect the question to the leadership as often as possible. The bottom line is, if in doubt; don’t implement an expensive organization-wide change effort. There are many risks in gathering data (more on that in later chapters). There is some fear among staff of providing data; there is the risk of not communicating well how the data will be used and thereby exacerbating fears; and there is the risk of getting false data. But the most significant risk we’ve found is that the organization may not be ready to deal with the results of an assessment. It’s actually more productive to talk about how not to use the results. Truth be told, greater benefits are realized when an organization doesn’t react to them. We just want the leaders, the managers, and the staff to review the results and say “hmmm.” That may sound strange, but there are many benefits from holding off on any action. How to Use the Results of A Self-Assessment These tools were developed for assessing an organization’s level of immaturity quickly, whether assessing the whole institution or a single department. They are not meant to signal or pinpoint weaknesses, and should not be used that way. Because they only capture people’s perceptions, the results should be used to establish a shared insight of the organization by the organization. Initially, quality discussions will allow for a common language to develop across the organization, at all levels. Later, annual repetition of the InnerView can assist in strategic planning. So how should these group discussions be conducted? There is a need to acknowledge the collective perceptions of the organization’s
LAYING THE FOUNDATION: UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL IMMATURITY
19
workforce. The results may be organized and presented based on the respondents’ hierarchical place in the organization. The view can be an “aggregate” picture or separate views of the perceptions of senior leadership, managers, or staff. The data can also be grouped by units or divisions in the organization. The results are the results, and discussing them openly is very refreshing. This is especially rewarding if effective communication appears to be one of the claimed organizational weaknesses. After initial wide discussions have occurred throughout the organization, it is important for the leadership to discuss long-range change and leave short-range “improvements” out of bounds. The vision and future belong to the leadership while the day-to-day issues should belong to the lowest level possible. The second iteration of assessments, which we recommend be conducted annually, begin to show some shifts in perceptions. The results of a third iteration of the instrument can be even more beneficial in that trends or patterns start to surface. Opportunities for improvements will spring up naturally, without any dictates from the top. “Immaturity” is a predictor of things to come more than a specific state of being. A multi-year look at Organizational Immaturity is a better predictor than a single year’s view. Leaders, managers, and staff can guesstimate the probabilities of any part of the organization suddenly behaving in ways that are outside its norm, and likewise, the probabilities of then sustaining those new behaviors. For example, a teen might make several very solid adult decisions, but then turn around and make a childish mistake the same day. No one expects the teen to be an adult every minute; nor will adults tolerate a teen being continuously childish. “Teen” is a state of being, but it is by nature a transition state, a time of predicting future outcomes.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 4
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
You know you’re in an immature organization when you hear people leave a meeting grumbling quietly to others how they plan to not do what they agreed to do during the meeting.
REMEMBER THE RULES Rule 1—You Can’t Mature an Organization To successfully change an organization requires the realization that you can’t change the organization. Zen at its finest! This is why we recommend not creating action plans as a result of the first assessments— a common mistake by any leadership looking for concrete evidence of improvement. Rather than focus on the evolving culture, leadership is eager to see enterprise-wide improvement efforts implemented— regardless of their actual acceptance and use. Discussion, reflection, and gaining an understanding should be the only objectives at this beginning stage. Rule 2—Plan To do the Impossible (Yes, You Can!) Without a plan, you’ll never achieve the impossible. It won’t happen by accident. After discussing the assessment, the next step is to take the up-front time, in a mature fashion, to plan on how to do the
22
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
impossible. Plan how to overcome the “normal” reality of the first rule—that you can’t mature an organization. This requires a willingness to talk with everyone involved (department, unit, whole organization), not about how to improve, but how the organization might benefit if there were improvements in any or all of the areas we’ll be covering in later sections. The discussions may be informal, but education will take place. The best way to plan to do the impossible is to listen to what the organization says—what does it believe it can do? No matter how the assessment responses come out, what people start talking about—whether they realize it or not—is expanding the ability of the organization to take on improvement efforts. Rule 3—Identify Champions at All Levels These are the catalysts, the peers who will make breaking the first rule truly possible. Listen to the membership of the organization and identify the true Champions of change—the ones who want to do things differently, who want to do the right things, the right way, the first time. Listen and watch for some righteous anger about any number of weaknesses and immaturities they or others see. Listen also to those who are against change, who don’t believe in any other means of production than what they’ve been doing for the last x-years. Some of them will be overtly against imposed change efforts, but more of them will use passiveaggressive behavior and give lip service to improvement while secretly doing nothing to help (or worse, doing everything they can to see that you fail). You’ll know which groups will be resistant to any change. The vast majority of time and resources needs to be devoted to the Champions, the ones who say “Heck, yes.” True Champions are best identified, not by their responses during discussions of change possibilities, but by their reaction to the responses of everyone else. During all of the conversations and discussions which flow from the
Where we should spend our time
Heck Yes
Where most currently spend their time
Yes
Maybe
No
Heck No
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
23
assessments, we must identify those who want change and are willing to work for it—those who are enthusiastic about improving, even if only in one small facet or area. The point here is to spend your time—your biggest resource investment—wisely. Too often we sacrifice precious time trying to bring a weakness up to minimum standards. We also tend to focus on the naysayer, trying desperately to bring him in line with the effort. We incorrectly believe that if we can get the naysayer to play, the rest will be easy. Not so! Even if you get the naysayer to participate, he won’t believe and therefore will not actually benefit from or use what you develop. You also run the risk of ignoring the ones who really want to play. The expenditure of resources to move from “mediocre” to “great” is untenable, as is the effort required to move a “no” to “yes.” We recommend reading Jim Collins’s book, Good to Great.1 He does an excellent job of explaining why moving more than one notch on a spectrum of improvement is so difficult. When we developed the InnerView method of assessment, we had over 40 items/areas to assess. This was daunting. Any organization can benefit from improvement in each of the 40 areas, but no organization can sensibly attack them all simultaneously. For the benefit of the whole, you must decide where to expend your energies and limited resources. This will be based on where you can get the greatest return for your investment (sweat equity, mostly) and where your Champions are. What areas can you match with a Champion? Your goal must be to help every Champion work on his chosen areas of interest. Remember anyone may be a Heck Yes for a specific area but a Heck No in another (and that’s OK at the beginning). It’s simple, logical, and totally against what we are used to. What if the area that the Champion wants to work on is one his unit is already proficient at? What if it’s their strength? What if no one wants to work on their weaknesses? Well, if they want to avoid what they have no passion for, to avoid the areas that they feel weakest in, perhaps you’ve won a great victory. Maybe you are just now hearing what they’ve been saying all along. You will garner a much higher return by helping your Champions improve what they are already good at than by laboring away at trying to force them to improve microscopically in areas where they have little or no energy. So how do we select which of the 40 plus areas to concentrate on? The simple and straightforward answer is, “We don’t.” We don’t select; we let the Champions tell us which areas they want to develop.
24
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
We don’t work any area with everyone; we concentrate on the Heck Yes people and on what they’re shouting yes about. There are no blanket enterprise-wide selections for an organization—not unless all the members are highly mature and are all Champions of change (in which case, stop reading this book—you’re wasting time). Rule 4—You Will Not Move a “Heck No” to “Yes” In fact, you won’t be able to move anyone from where they are. You must identify where they are and then leverage their position. Continue the education process. The more the organization knows, the better. You’ll encounter resistance to this from all levels. Many enemies of change realize that knowledge and information are power. They will not want to share information. They will not want the members of the organization to grow, improve, or develop. Why? Because most of these anti-change agents are satisfied with where they are and where they are headed. Changing the organization, growing the expertise of others, sharing information and knowledge—those do nothing to help them, and in their view, can only hurt them by making them have to work harder to keep up with the ones who are learning new things. They got to where they are because of the organization’s current level of (im)maturity. In their eyes, to change only puts their future at risk. Rule 5—A “Heck No” on One Topic Might Be a “Heck Yes” on a Different Improvement Initiative Even if people move of their own volition, we cannot expect them to move more than one notch on the scale, from “heck no” to “no,” or from “no” to “maybe,” or from “maybe” to “yes.” It’s unrealistic to expect someone will move more than a single phase in a lifetime (unless they suddenly “see the light” and become internally driven). Unfortunately, the assessment tool doesn’t identify Champions by itself. You’ll have to dig deeper to identify the “pockets of maturity” or Champions. This is the most important task after the assessment. Find the Champions and help them—you’ll probably have a full schedule just from this—and the good news is that you will be creating an environment that is more amenable to success than failure. While you’re searching out Champions, don’t fall victim to the “horns or haloes” effect, where the constructive people seem constructive in all areas, while the negative people seem negative in all areas.
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
25
Don’t give up on the Heck No people totally. Remember the Heck No is normally resistant to change because the benefits of change don’t seem to outweigh the risks. So why not simply avoid them? Because the same level of passion a Heck No has against one particular change effort, he or she may have in support of a different initiative. Don’t just find an area where the Heck No is “willing to entertain change” (is a Maybe). There are myriads of improvement opportunities in every organization, but it won’t be enough to find one the Heck No can accept. The problem is, if you find one which the Heck No says “maybe” or “yes” to, it’s probably related to his need to please—telling you what he thinks you want to hear. If you’re going to risk working with a Heck No (or even a No), you’ll need to find something he’s a passionate Heck Yes for. This allows you to be a positive influence, a help to the Heck No in an area where he feels a need or senses urgency. Once you help a Heck No in a single Heck Yes area, he may be more willing to work in other areas. You will have rightfully gained his trust and faith.
Jill did not believe in process definitions. “Why should I write down, in ridiculous detail, how I do what I do? I’m the only one who does it and I’ve been doing it the same way for five years. It’ll cost me more time to write it all down than any savings I expect from looking at it.” It will prove to be unproductive to try to sway Jill with logic or promises of process improvement. Analyzing her process threatens her security. She is not ready for this type of improvement. But when asking her about training, you notice she has a more open attitude. She says, “I need training in the new software system we’re installing. Every time new things come down, I spend months trying to learn how to use it. It’s frustrating. Also, when I request permission to attend conferences my boss looks at me like I’m trying to get a paid vacation—I learn a lot at those conferences!” Jill still seems to be generally unhappy, but when we look past that, we see that training is an area that she seems interested in improving. The offer of developing training plans for Jill, with the benefits of just-in-time scheduling, comprehensive training, and clear justification for specific conferences may make Jill a Heck Yes for developing training plans.
26
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
This will allow her to succeed in one area although she was a staunch Heck No in the other. When you’ve helped key persons/sections obtain their Heck Yes goals, it will be much easier to later revisit any Yes, Maybe, No, or Heck No areas.
If more than 50 percent of the organization moves positively on a specific effort (critical mass), the remainder can be brought along through executive direction. For example, once the majority of an organization has training plans in place and are using them to good effect, then training plans as standard operating procedure can be mandated for all without fear. The rest of the workforce will be accepting of the change (notice we didn’t say “happy”) if others are proclaiming the benefits and the majority are already using it. In fact the Maybe’s and Yes’s should already have moved into the active camp due to both peer pressure and your Heck Yes’s vocally promoting the improvement. The simple methodology of working from the left of the spectrum (Heck Yes’s) toward the right is designed to build momentum until the snowball is large enough to carry the No’s and Heck No’s along. Bottom line: how do you work with the Heck No? The answer is, you don’t. At least not on whatever they’re a Heck No about. Rule 6—The Battle Is on the Front Lines, Not in the Executive Suite Rule 6 is a truism in the military as well as in corporate and nonprofit sectors. It is true in all organizations. To shift an organization from unable-to-change to change-able requires that the organization as an entity evolve and grow, and this requires efforts at the grass roots. There are stores full of books designed to assist executive leadership in saying the right or proper things, talking the talk, and then walking the walk. While we would be remiss to imply that it is not important for the leadership to change, we want to stress that the most important battles occur at the lowest levels within the organization. Leadership must support the improvement efforts by consistently preaching the good news and recruiting as many choir members as possible. Leadership must be advocates and sponsors of the change, but then get out of the way. Leadership must provide the
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
27
resources and inspiration for change. No question, the leadership must be fully behind the change. But while the leadership’s commitment to change is a prerequisite, it is far from enough. The critical error occurs when, realizing the need for leadership support, we spend much of our effort in the “executive suite” to the neglect of the lowest levels of the organization. Our resources, from funding a lunch meeting to paying for mentoring time, are spent poorly compared to the marketing of the change to leadership. If the leadership needs a heavy sell on the merits of and reasons for the effort to move the organization, leadership is not ready for the change. If the consultant wants to spend the majority of her time with the leadership, she is more interested in improving the leaders’ skill sets than growing the organization. This is fine if the goal is to grow specific leaders. But if the goal is to improve the organization, one option would be to change consultants. Leadership can make (or should we say “fake”?) changes that create the illusion that the organization has improved—a lie that proves to be a false impression when either the consulting contract ends or the leader leaves the organization. The battle field is on the front lines. An organization needs to be grown from the bottom up. By working with individual units to improve their capabilities, the organization will grow, and the growth will outlive both changes in the environment and changes in leadership. Any change effort at a massive level requires a change of culture. And culture is not an easy or quick change. To change a culture requires an organization to change down to its very roots. Granted, telling your change agents (either internal change agents or hired consultants) that they need to work at the root with the lowlevel units is not “sexy.” It lacks profile and high visibility. And what is worse (for the consultant) is that there is less room for error. The consultant must produce results. The usual scapegoat for the weary consultant is leadership, specifically the leaders’ lack of commitment, which works when the focus is in the executive suite. But if the consultant is hired to specifically help: • Classify each unit on the Heck Yes to Heck No continuum, • Work with the Heck Yes’s to produce practical successes, and • Document the benefits of each success in order to market the program to the Yes’s and Maybe’s . . . . . . then it is impossible to push the blame for failure onto leadership.
28
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
The consultant in such a scenario has little-to-no “wiggle room” if his or her effort fails. Success is predicated on the consultant’s proper identification of the level of involvement of the unit (pockets of maturity) and then the proper selection of tools and processes for growth. Although the leader’s commitment is important, it is no longer the linchpin goal, and the leader will no longer be the scapegoat if an effort fails. The key is for leadership to understand that success doesn’t mean organization-wide improvement (that’s beyond an immature organization’s grasp). The implementation of mature behaviors and improvements need only happen within each identified pocket of maturity, and the positive results will speak volumes. WHY GRASSROOTS REALLY MATTER Earlier we explained that this book can be used by a leader, by mid-level managers, and by enthusiastic staff. We’ve suggested that positive things can be accomplished by starting at any level. So what is the purpose of this section? What is meant by grassroots, and why does grassroots factor so strongly in this process? Hint: forget who starts something; concentrate on how you get it rolling. Grassroots means ignoring people’s rank within an organization; it means going deep into the culture. Grassroots matter because new processes must be institutionalized at the appropriate level to make a lasting change. On Processes Why do improvement models spend so much time talking about processes? Isn’t the most important resource our people? Yes, people are the most important resource by far, and we need to ensure that we hire the right people, motivate and reward them, keep those resources working at peak effectiveness, and remove people who cannot mesh with the organization. Change is hard enough, but changing people is nearly impossible. But what we can address is how we do things: how we interact, how we communicate, how we produce, how we measure. “How” is the optimal word for change; it means process. There’s little chance of, or benefit in, trying to change people at their essential levels (their values, morals, or beliefs). But we do want to change the way they do things. And being willing and able to initiate and adapt to change reflects maturity.
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
29
On Implementation and Institutionalization Implementation is putting a plan into action, doing a task, or filling out a form. It is what happens after the movie director yells “action.” For many managers, it ends when the director yells “cut”; for them, the movie-editing function is not considered part of implementation. Planning, coordination, preparation, documentation, and polishing are all considered superfluous to the more important task of doing. “When in doubt, take action!” This is a dangerously flawed view of implementation; it does not put the proper emphasis on the more important phases of work— yes, more important. Without planning and documentation, the organization (project team, unit, etc.) is essentially flying by the seat of its pants. Without planning and documentation, it is impossible to get close to repeatability, impossible to develop effective internal training. To properly think through and allocate resources to any change effort, make the goal the achievement of institutionalization—making change stick—and not just implementation.
In the best-case scenario, implementation includes planning, doing, and documenting. Implementation, done right, ensures repeatability and high levels of effectiveness and efficiency. Implementation, done right, allows the organization to learn from its successes as well as its failures, while constantly improving the way it does things. The major difference between implementation done right and institutionalization is that implementation is a periodically repeated, orchestrated event. But when a process is institutionalized, it becomes the “way we do business.” It is the accepted norm, not a process we “have to follow” to keep someone off our backs. Institutionalization of a process is the ultimate completion of an implementation; when we form habits, we institutionalize our behaviors. Too often organizations settle for implementation instead of pushing forward for the total acceptance and adoption of a process. Institutionalization of an improvement should be the only true, acceptable measure of success. If a consultant blows into town, implements a process or installs a tool, that’s more akin to an intervention. If there were any benefits from the activity, they would fade
30
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
quickly. The improvement must outlast the consultant and the sponsor (leader). It must become the norm. It must be institutionalized. BUILDING POCKETS OF MATURITY Now that you have the theoretical background, let’s get to the todo list for doing the impossible. These tasks are written for the change agent. If you’re still reading this book, no matter what your level in the organization, you are a change agent whether you want to admit it or not. Identify areas for improvement based on the level of passion Work with the “heck yes’s” on what they want to work on. There are usually more than enough areas for improvement; let people guide you on what to start with. You can provide a menu for them to choose from (see the list of mature behaviors which follow), but they should choose only those that they are excited about. Your task is to help them translate the organizational-level mature behavior into their area of interest, their passion. Some of them may be obvious, such as training. But others, such as policy framework, can be confusing to operational level managers. They may believe in standards, but not see the benefits of having a rigorous and common process/format/template for organizational standards. And that’s alright. Your job as a change agent is to help them develop usable standards while leveraging their influence on making the documentation (rigor) transferable to other units. Remember, you do not have to bring everyone up to speed in the same maturity areas. Build pockets of excellence within the organization; don’t try to make everyone excellent at the same thing at the same time. By now you already know that approach cannot achieve the desired outcome, especially if the organization is immature. Instead, allow the good to flourish and foster growth wherever it takes root. Work Their Agenda, Not Yours Work around their schedule, not around an arbitrary deadline for a “get well plan.” They are the customer and the boss. They are your client and they run the show. Find out what they need to accomplish and by when. Then make it happen within the context of developing
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
31
the mature behavior selected. You may have to do more work than you feel is fair, but your job is not to push the Champion to display the mature behavior. Your job is not to get the Champion to do it your way. Your job is to help them succeed in their own area while always positioning the effort so that it can be used as a model for the rest of the organization. You need to build the Champion into an evangelist not only for the desired behavior, but for your consultation and assistance. We’ll say that again: You want the Champion to promote your cause and you. Not credit you, but promote your willingness to help. WIIFM Is the Key Find out the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) for them, and deliver on it. This is fully in line with working the client’s agenda, but going a step further. Not only do you want to give them what they need when they need it, but you want to help them identify the benefits they will gain personally—recognition for the successful implementation. All Credit Goes to Those Who Change, Not to the Change Agent Credit is not for sharing. It is something to be given away. It is a gift, a show of good faith, and good will. “Market” your clients’ successes, give them all of the public accolades. Publicize their successes. Then others will want some of what they have. This isn’t peer pressure, but peer acceptance. Small successes still equal successes. Don’t worry if they didn’t solve world hunger, or if they only showed a small improvement in effectiveness or efficiency. A win is a win is a win. It doesn’t matter if it was a blowout. Your goal is to have the Champions become evangelists and preach your story to their peers in the organization. The hope is that some of the “yes’s” will contact you, and then will ultimately move to “heck yes” because they want success also. Building Pockets of Maturity Is, in Itself, a Mature Behavior We offer below areas of opportunity for developing your organization, one pocket at a time. By implementing any of them in a subunit, you will be proving the concept to the skeptical and, with each iteration, you will improve the process and the product for the
32
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
organization. It allows the reluctant, the latecomers, to implement the behavior easier, faster, and better. The first, early adopters—your Champions—have the tougher task of getting it right for the next brave soul. But they also get recognition for being the lead and will have ample opportunities to be spotlighted, explaining their process, the tools, and how they made it all a success (more about spotlighting in the chapter on recognition). Your job is to keep documenting and learning from each experience so the next Champion (or convert from “yes” to “heck yes”) will have an easier time of it. If and when you ever get a chance to implement the tool with a “maybe” or a “no,” you will need to have it highly polished and practically bullet proof. Where To Start? So what are the types of improvements we recommend? While you might first think of operational improvements (faster, lower cost, fewer defects), we recommend an improvement that can be leveraged to grow the organization. Making one operational improvement as the goal in a single subunit of the whole enterprise is a good thing, but you may be focusing on a unique situation that cannot be leveraged by the larger organization. By addressing one of the common organizational development areas, the subunit can realize operational gains while actually piloting an organizational change. This “pilot” attitude not only allows the subunit to be in the spotlight; it makes leveraging the improvement much easier. Think of this process as a good virus—we want to “infect” one or more small portions of the organization with an organizational development improvement tool that will hopefully multiply and infect the rest of the organization. Like a good virus, it will positively affect most subunits that become infected (some may show a natural resistance), causing each to have similar, but not necessarily identical, reactions. We don’t want to just replicate the symptom; we want to infect the organization with the new behaviors. These viruses can be any one of the following mature behaviors: • Strategic planning to include (preferably in this order): • Mission statement • Vision statement • Goals and objectives • Action items
HOW TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
33
• Measures of success • Positional and personal training plans • Project methodology • Policy framework to include: • Policies • Standards • Process and procedure definitions • Performance management • Communication flows • Reward and recognition • Annual assessments We discuss each of the behaviors in the context of an organization. These behaviors can be implemented at an individual level (personal), for a small team or subunit, a department, or an entire organization. To simplify the text, we refer to “the organization” throughout, but ask you to remember that the theory of working with pockets of maturity dictates that you probably will not be doing this at the full organizational level. More likely, you’ll be working with a subunit led by a Champion. Your job is to match the Champion with the behavior. NOTE 1. Jim Collins, Good to Great.
This page intentionally left blank
INTERLUDE
Congratulations! You’ve successfully completed the theory portion of Overcoming Organizational Immaturity. Before we start sharing the tips and tools that can help you successfully move forward, we provide you with a little light reading. Find out how two old friends used some of the very tools we’ll introduce in the rest of the book to improve their organizations. This fictional story represents an aggregate of real events, and the names have been changed to protect the innocent. *** The relationship between Ralph Chesser and Larry Jenson began when they were roommates in college, and from the very beginning the relationship seemed to thrive on spirited but friendly competition. Over the years, their friendship continued to grow as the competitive challenges in their separate careers multiplied—similar to the way military compatriots become close and remain so after a tour together. Their tour had been in the corporate trenches of two totally different firms—Ralph was a high-level executive for a recognized national nonprofit organization, whereas Larry was an executive at the corporate offices of a Fortune 100 firm. Periodically, driven by their competitive nature, these two warriors met to share horror stories, exchange advice, and challenge one another. On one occasion the mood was different; their voices lacked authority and their swagger was gone. Both had spent the past eighteen months rolling out enterprise-wide organizational improvement
36
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
efforts and they had grown tired of the failures. Maybe more than the failures, they were tired of the blame they heaped on themselves. They were depressed and thoroughly frustrated that a significant amount of their personal effort and their organization’s resources failed to generate any measurable success. Such was Ralph’s mood when he carried his coffee and muffin over to the booth and slid in across from Larry. “I don’t understand, Larry,” Ralph said, “how could we fail; we had top-down funding and support, we went with the consultants’ recommended methodologies, and I know I did everything I was asked to do.” They had seen good money chase what became pipe dreams of Total Quality Management, Kaizen teams, and Six Sigma. Larry offered no immediate response, staring at his half-empty cup of coffee as he mulled over his next words. He really didn’t know what to say. Ralph vowed to never again catch the latest fad train to disappointment. Larry’s face seemed to brighten a bit—Ralph’s vow gave him an idea. He decided to take Ralph’s vow as a challenge. It was this thinly veiled challenge that would ultimately spark a two-careerchanging chain of events. Without a word, and with a Cheshire smile on his face, Larry slid a piece of literature across the table to Ralph. The flyer advertised an upcoming workshop offering a different message, a message not based on a new methodology for change. Rather, the speaker would explain why Larry’s and Ralph’s past efforts had failed and show how they could make positive strides with any of the methods they’d already invested in. “So what do you think?” Larry asked Ralph. “I need a fresh cup of coffee. Looks like you need a refill too,” Ralph replied, finally cracking a smile. “It definitely sounds different,” he said as the waitress filled both cups. “Yeah. I kind of like the concept that it’s not our fault.” “Yeah, nice line.” They both laughed. “But what if they’re right?” Larry offered. He’d been pondering this ever since he’d printed out the seminar info from the Web site earlier that week. “I guess anything is possible.” Ralph blew away some steam and took a sip. He wasn’t eager to start another improvement effort, even if it promised to be different. “All right. I’m in if you are; it’ll be interesting to see how they’ll pitch their methodology,” Ralph sarcastically replied.
INTERLUDE
37
*** It’d been nearly a month since Larry had shown Ralph the workshop brochure. As Ralph walked into the rapidly filling seminar room, he heard a familiar voice, “Hey Ralph, over here; I saved you a seat.” As he made his way to the seat, the “atmosphere” music gave way to a Robin Williams inspired “Gooood Morning.” Ralph leaned in and whispered into Larry’s ear, “What have you gotten me into this time?” Larry smiled and replied, “Not sure, but we should know by the end of the day.” Later, as the attendees filed out through the doors for their lunch break, neither Ralph nor Larry was completely sold. Before Ralph could take the first bite of his lunch, Larry asked, “What do you think they mean when they say that we won’t succeed with any system and that we can succeed with any system we pick?” “Just consulting double-speak,” Ralph responded, silently wondering how the presenters were going to tie this all together. Seeing “that look” on his friend’s face, Larry replied, “Tell you what. Let’s agree to give whatever they pitch a shot. They talk about starting small.” “Still means tossing good money after bad, just less of it. Why bother?” mumbled Ralph. This was their way—each naturally took a side and the other debated the opposite. It was a normal thing for them and had stood them well over the years. It allowed them to see both sides of an argument and work out the details objectively, assured that neither one of them was married exclusively to one side or the other. “Well, they say we can use any methods, materials, or previous stuff, that we don’t need to invest money so much as time,” Larry pressed. “So they say! Don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t have much ‘free’ time to spare,” Ralph said, unwilling to give any ground. “Well, as long as we don’t end up putting nooses around our necks, what’s to lose?” challenged Larry. “Hmmph, let me think. . . . Oh yeah; time, effort, respect. Or how about losing our sanity?” Ralph responded as he finished his sandwich, side of fries, and iced coffee. “No appetite there,” Larry thought. “Look. Let’s make a bet. We both give whatever they pitch a fair shot, and then after three months we share the results over dinner. If either of us succeeds, you buy. If we both fail, I’ll buy.” Larry had stepped out of their traditional debate routine.
38
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Ralph wiped his mouth. He wondered why Larry was so desperate to give this new stuff a try. He wondered whether Larry was in trouble at work or just so frustrated that he was ready to quit. He’d have to bring that up at another time. “So all you have to do is claim to have succeeded and I’m on the hook for dinner?” Ralph answered. “Ralph is still on his game,” Larry thought. “OK. Then you buy if we both succeed and I’ll pay if either of us fails.” Larry knew he had him. Ralph laughed. “You’ve got a bet.” The afternoon session had a number of “aha” moments and exceeded both Ralph’s and Larry’s expectations. They not only paid close attention and took notes; they even asked pointed questions. Their mistrust of organizational improvement peddlers actually drove them to get as many answers as possible. Even though the presenters offered free assistance via e-mail after the seminar, Ralph and Larry figured there would be a catch. Better to get all the answers while they were at the training and get their money’s worth. Their questions were good ones. “So you’re telling us that we should stop trying to improve the organization?” quizzed Ralph. The speaker nodded in the affirmative and then elaborated, “At least the whole organization, at one time, in the same way.” “So all the other consultants were wrong?” Ralph prodded. “Depends. Were you wrong to try to improve? No, it’s not so much that they—or you—were wrong,” the presenter responded. Sensing his audience wasn’t buying, he continued, “It’s like when my family adopted Grandpa’s dog. The dog was old, but still lively, and I didn’t give credence to the ‘can’t teach an old dog new tricks’ adage. I wanted to teach him some simple tricks, so I developed a training schedule and performance metrics. I worked day and night, but it didn’t matter. I couldn’t get the dog to do the simplest of tricks. After a week of no progress, I finally told my parents I was failing, and they asked me what I expected, given that the dog was deaf and nearly blind.” He paused for effect. “I guess you can’t teach a deaf and blind old dog new tricks. The dog was not capable of change. I wasn’t wrong for trying, but I wasn’t right either, and I certainly wasn’t going to succeed.” “Look, we’re not suggesting any of the traditional methodologies aren’t valid. Most of them could add value, but the problem is that your organizations aren’t ready.” The presenter didn’t waver from his previous stance.
INTERLUDE
39
“So we shouldn’t try them?” Someone else asked. “If the past is a good predictor of the future, you won’t succeed. How many of you have failed at attempts to implement an organization-wide improvement effort?” All hands went up. Some raised both hands. They all laughed. “Trick question—that’s why we’re here!” Ralph muttered louder than he meant to. “True,” said the presenter, who heard him. The laughter died down. “But it’s what you have in common that supports our theories. You all want the best for your companies. Each of you believes your organization needs to improve. Each of you has paid for, tried, and failed using a valid, proven organizational improvement methodology. Why did you fail?” They had all sat through the morning introduction. They all knew what the speaker wanted to hear. They all refused to play along— everyone except Larry. “Because we wanted too much, too quickly.” This was not what they had been told. Larry was personalizing the information and talking about his own experiences. “Go on.” The speaker couldn’t hold back his smile. “Well, our pride and sense of urgency made us try to fix everything at once. We don’t like piecemeal approaches. We don’t like giving up control. And everyone in this room knows deep down that taking baby steps is an excuse for subpar performance, not an implementation procedure.” “Yes . . . ,” the speaker responded in a tone that encouraged Larry to continue. “When my organization tried for the third time to implement a fix, I mandated change. I was fully committed. I dedicated almost all my time to it—I gave personal attention to every manager and every section. I couldn’t have tried harder. I demanded success. I was going to make it work by sheer will power and determination. I believed the first two failures were my fault. Either I didn’t try hard enough, or I missed something.” Nods filled the room with silent affirmation. No one needed to jot that one down; their stories all mirrored Larry’s to some extent. “I realize now, looking back, that some managers and workers embraced the ideas, but their peers and subordinates beat it out of them. The organization as a whole refused to change, and no matter what I did, the change wasn’t going to happen. I didn’t know why at the time. Now I think I do.” Larry wasn’t holding anything back.
40
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
“Mandates didn’t get the job done, but I missed the opportunity to ‘think small.’” “And what are you going to do next?” The speaker wanted Larry to finish the learning process. Larry thought for a moment and then looked up with a smile on his face. “Nothing,” Larry laughed, “and everything.” They all laughed. “Exactly,” the speaker agreed. *** Two months and three weeks later Larry called Ralph. “So are you free next Friday?” The three months were almost up and Larry wanted to ensure they’d be able to meet and discuss their results. “Sure. Where do you want to eat?” Ralph was noncommittal; Larry couldn’t tell anything from his friend’s voice. “How about that new Italian restaurant?” Larry suggested. “What, are you trying to break my bank?” Ralph complained and inadvertently gave away his surprise. “So you admit defeat?” Larry was smiling—he was almost happier for his friend’s success than his own. “Gladly.” *** Larry was so excited to share his story that he asked to go first. As Ralph finished ordering some appetizers to go with their dinner, Larry enthusiastically began. “I thought it would be much harder than it was. I was sure that my managers and staff had had enough of organizational improvement to last a lifetime. No way would they agree to another improvement effort. The last one went over so poorly. Even with me spearheading the effort personally, the staff nearly revolted. Oh, they didn’t argue or refuse overtly, but their hearts were far from the effort needed. They did only the minimum required. They didn’t put in any extra effort; they didn’t try to be innovative or creative. But the failure taught me a valuable lesson: not the money, nor consulting efforts, nor my personal commitment were the real measures of success for an improvement effort. The best measure was the quality and amount of involvement of the workforce. I learned the hard way that no organization-wide improvement methodology will succeed if the workforce doesn’t believe in it. So I followed the guidance from our seminar and decided to do nothing. Nothing organization-wide. Nothing myself. Instead I looked for those who still had a passion for change.”
INTERLUDE
41
Ralph stopped munching on the appetizer long enough to flash a smile of approval. Larry continued, “The first thing I did was to send an e-mail to every manager. To be honest, I had little faith that I would get a decent response, but what did I have to lose? But rather than send out the traditional group message, I remembered that section of the conference where we learned about the benefits of working only with those who have passion, so I personalized each message and sent them out individually. I resisted my normal impulse to write a directive and kept it brief and inviting.” He showed Ralph one of the messages. Dear (manager’s first name), I am looking for a unit interested in engaging in an experiment that will allow them to implement their own idea(s) for improving effectiveness or efficiency. This is a totally optional program. Funds are available if needed; the only “catch” is that you must have a plan for improvement. The key focus of the plan should be to reduce identified risks in your area. Interested? Let’s discuss your plan. Thanks, Larry “To my total surprise,” said Larry, “I got positive responses from more than half of my 15 units. Eight of them responded with ideas. Most actually had proposals ready to go, and they ranged from suggestion and recognition programs to strategic planning and using efficiency metrics to improve the bottom line. And no two were alike.” “Ralph, I have to tell you, the most difficult part of the entire process was not getting side tracked on demanding better documentation,” Larry confided. “I forced myself to think of them from my managers’ points of view. “It gets better,” Larry continued. “Turns out most of the proposals didn’t ask for any money. In fact, most of the plans promised to save the organization resources, and improve the overall profit margin.” “Wow, I’m impressed,” Ralph finally commented. “Sounds almost too good to be true—you’re telling me you didn’t slip up once?” “Just like old times, you never liked listening unless the conversation was about you,” Larry joked with a smirk. “Despite my best intentions to continue to do nothing, in a moment of weakness I asked each manager to, when successful, pro-
42
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
duce a brief presentation for the president of the company. I told them that, if these proposals worked, I wanted them to present their accomplishments at a future board meeting. Deep down I knew this was not in keeping with the ‘do nothing’ concept, but I was excited about the prospect of finally showing the brass a success.” “It took less than a day for Jerry Huffman, one of my top-performing managers to bring me back to earth. Jerry was direct—‘I thought you wanted to help us?’ Even after explaining it was about getting deserved recognition, Jerry wasn’t about to back down. Though he said he understood, he said, ‘What do you think will happen if I get my metrics in place, and you have me present them to the board? They’ll want everyone to provide the same kind of data. Just because you’ve become enlightened doesn’t mean they have.’” Larry had never thought to ask how his people would want to be rewarded. Jerry not only suggested an alternate way to recognize his unit, but he also pointed out that the other managers probably wouldn’t appreciate the same things he did. Larry made a mental note to ask each manager what they would consider proper recognition. Within three months there were obvious improvements in four of the eight units that had taken up Larry’s challenge. Three others were still implementing their changes with an eye to seeing positive results in the next quarter. The final manager took a job with a rival company before she could implement her idea. Most of them worked the efforts “out of hide” and as time allowed. Larry proudly realized they weren’t waiting around for him to tell them what to do. And he wasn’t looking over their shoulders daily or weekly. When Larry’s personalized e-mail showed up in each of their inboxes, it had energized them. It had also helped them feel that their efforts were considered a priority and were “approved” by management. Their quiet, clandestine efforts could be brought into the light. They felt freed and empowered to experiment more boldly, whether working to improve processes or performance. The biggest struggle for Larry was to remain a cheerleader and not be the head coach. His second biggest struggle was not seeing the entire organization working on identical things and improving at the same rate. The seven units were not addressing the same things— their efforts were extremely diverse, and their results were personalized to the needs of each unit. But Larry was on cloud nine; his organization was improving—not in the way he would have envisioned it, but there were obvious changes occurring. In just three months, his units had implemented more than they had achieved in five years of consultant-led, organization-wide failures. Furthermore,
INTERLUDE
43
Larry was becoming confident that these changes would not only last, but also expand across units over time—two unit managers had already approached Jerry Huffman about getting some training on metrics and creating a few simple scorecards. This time, change (with a small “c”) would spread, and improvements would “stick” because they were being developed at the appropriate levels for reasons specific to each unit. These improvements, and future experiments, weren’t dependent upon Larry’s constant attention or division-wide announcements. *** Larry finished his story as their dinner arrived. Ralph had already finished two small appetizers and was halfway through a third. “Are you going to slow down and tell me your story?” Larry asked. “Yes, yes,” Ralph said putting down his fork. “I just figured I should get my money’s worth since I’m paying.” He paused as he wiped his hands and mouth. “I tried a little different tactic; I didn’t send out a call for initiatives.” The waiter laid out the plates. “I took three managers to lunch and asked them whether they had any ideas.” *** “So I asked them, ‘do any of you have any ideas about how to improve your units?’ The three managers looked at each other warily. They thought it was nice of me to provide lunch, but they knew there was a catch. I had never taken any of them out to eat before when it wasn’t a business meeting. And aside from the occasional mention of a birthday, anniversary, or kid’s school play, their one-onone sessions with me never ventured far from performance discussions. They knew there was something up. No one offered themselves up for sacrifice. “Seriously,” I prodded them. Needless to say, I didn’t realize that it sounded like I was accusing them of needing improvement and failing to recognize it. “Finally, Shirley, always forthright, broke the silence: ‘Why do you ask?’ “I told them I want to help,” Ralph said to Larry. “I was oblivious to how they saw the situation. I assumed they should easily see I was looking to help them. That meeting was a total failure. That’s when I called you.” Larry smiled. “I gotta tell you,” Ralph reflected, “I’ve never been real smooth dealing with feelings. It hurt when my managers were confused and didn’t trust me. They acted as if they didn’t know me at all. And I
44
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
realized that I had never taken the time to share more than directions and performance feedback. So following your recommendation, I asked my administrative assistant for help for the first time.” *** It was Carolyn who helped him get the ball rolling. “Yes, sir?” She wondered what he needed. He rarely called her into the office; usually, he communicated over the intercom. “How would you find a manager who wants to pilot an improvement effort?” “In our company?” she said smiling. She didn’t seem surprised by his request. “What improvement?” “I don’t have anything specific in mind. I just want to find a manager who wants to champion an effort.” “Any effort?” she asked, now a little surprised. “Yup.” She thought for a moment. “Why don’t you check the suggestion box?” “The what?” “Suggestion box. The last improvement program—the one the consultants tried to implement—included a suggestion box.” Ralph was sincerely and utterly unaware. “We have one of those?” “It’s not a real box. We used a Web site so workers could submit ideas anonymously if they wanted.” “And people have used it?” “They did for the first four months or so.” “Why’d they stop?” he knew the answer as soon as he asked the question. “Nothing ever happened. They figured no one was reading them, much less acting on them.” “Who was supposed to read them?” Carolyn looked down at her feet. “Oh.” Ralph took a deep breath. “Please sit down.” He realized this was going to be a longer conversation than he’d anticipated. “How was I supposed to get to them? I don’t remember getting information on the Web site. Do I have a password?” Ralph felt like a bit of an idiot. Carolyn actually smiled again. “It’s not really just you. The entire executive board receives a report every week, or at least they did, of all the suggestions.” Ralph’s confused face told her what she already knew.
INTERLUDE
45
“I delivered them personally to the board meeting each week,” she said. “We never looked at them?” Sometimes Carolyn actually felt sorry for Ralph. “Will that be all?” is all she said. “Yes. No. Can you bring me a copy of the reports?” “All of them?” “Yes.” “I can do better than that. How about I give you access to my database?” The database was thorough. Carolyn had created a table with the ideas categorized by type (complaint, suggestion, compliment), scope (organizational vs. unit vs. individual), estimated cost, estimated effort, expected benefits, ownership (which sections of the organization “owned” responsibility for it), submitter (if provided), and date of submission. Ralph called Carolyn over the intercom, “Carolyn, could you come in here?” Twice in one day. She would have to mark this day on her calendar. “Yes, sir?” Carolyn entered the office to find Ralph staring at his computer monitor intently. “There are so many suggestions!” “Yes, sir.” “I sorted on only suggestions, and only at the unit level, and there’s still too much to go through. Can you show me how to limit my search some more?” She helped him limit the information on his screen to only those submitted by managers, at the unit level, owned by the submitter and with documented expected benefits. When Ralph realized that three of the ideas were from Shirley, he shook his head. “Sir?” “I owe someone an apology. Please set up a meeting with Shirley from Procurement as soon as possible.” *** Ralph handled it well. He wasn’t going to let Shirley leave until he had convinced her of his sincerity and embarrassment. “I read your suggestion about training plans. You wanted an increase in your training budget for some specific training, and you said you would show an increase in productivity in return?” “Yes, but only if we show what carryover skills we will gain and how.” Even Shirley was willing to explain her idea once asked, her
46
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
cynicism set aside for the moment. “If you can wait a minute, I’ll show you.” “Sure.” Shirley left his office with more energy than Ralph had ever seen from her. She returned in a few minutes, surprised to find Ralph not on the phone or e-mailing. He was reading through more suggestions. He put the papers aside and gave Shirley his full attention. “Sorry.” “That’s OK. Here we go.” Shirley passed him a folder. It had “Training Plans” neatly lettered on the front. Inside, there were sections marked with colored tabs. The first tab read “Master” and then there were five more, each with a worker’s last name. “Each staff member has an individualized training plan,” Shirley began to explain. Ralph’s interest began to peak. Shirley had obviously put a lot of work into this. After each name, there was a list of skills in alphabetical order. “What do the columns mean?” “That’s our skills-assessment worksheet.” Ralph smiled; he was actually enjoying this. He couldn’t remember the last time one of his managers was so animated. “Each skill is identified from the master list,” she reached over and turned the page back to the first section. “We started with over 100 skills. We then picked the ones each worker needed, or should have, for their immediate position, which they could use soon to grow within the unit, and which would help them in developing their careers.” Ralph smiled again. He hadn’t heard anyone mention “career” in the same sentence as working at his company in several years. Some management books even stated very matter-of-factly that “career” was just a quaint idea from the mid-twentieth century. “After we identified the skills, we assessed every worker’s current ability level. Each individual and I came to an agreement on their skill level.” “For every skill?” “Yes. First we did the required skills and then the ‘like to haves,’ and then the advancement skills.” “You keep them separate?” “Yes. I don’t want to fund the extras until they’re 100 percent trained on their job-required skills.” Ralph couldn’t believe how simple she made this sound; it must have taken weeks, maybe months to put in place.
INTERLUDE
47
“We identify training opportunities,”—she skipped a couple of pages to a list of recommended training opportunities—“and budget and schedule accordingly. If it provides a skill improvement, that comes up in performance reviews. If the training is for a new skill, like project management, then I plan a brief 90-day and 180-day followup to find out how each person has been using the new skill, to make sure they are practicing what they learned.” *** “The suggestion box was a gold mine,” Ralph continued. “I enlisted most of those who made the suggestions to champion their own improvement recommendations. Some were not as far along as Shirley’s training plans. And that was OK. I did require each manager to document their ideas and give me periodic updates. I used the information to provide feedback, support, and as much individualized recognition as I could. But I wasn’t prepared for the changes I began seeing in the demeanor of my managers. They were so engaged, they actually seemed to be happy to be at work. I knew they were making real improvements because they proudly shared their successes with me. But I saw things going on that those managers didn’t even recognize; their renewed sense of engagement was contagious, lifting everyone’s energy levels. “I didn’t care anymore that they weren’t all doing the same things, following the same game plan. Also, I learned to enjoy giving them recognition even more because it wasn’t a bargaining chip to get them to do something; it was purely my way of applauding their effort. I enjoyed seeing my champions play off one another, trading ideas about extending the results of their unit improvements. One of the units actually created a strategic plan from scratch that was so profound that I pulled it into the division’s plan. I never even mentioned the word ‘maturity’ to any of my managers, and here I was witnessing its rise. Sure, there’s a long way still to go, so my role now is to keep the energy high and the enthusiasm growing.” *** When Ralph finished telling Larry his story, they both smiled. “Dessert?” Ralph asked. “Definitely—I’m going to order the most expensive thing they have—because you’re buying.” “Hey, no problem. This is the best bet I’ve ever lost!” Larry and Ralph remained in touch, each learning from the other. Six months later they even did something unique: they held a combined-company Saturday retreat, during which various managers
48
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
shared success stories with their counterparts. And Larry and Ralph did absolutely nothing during the retreat—nothing except pay for the food and provide a lot of cheerleading.
PART 2
IDENTIFYING THE OBSTACLES AND LEARNING HOW TO OVERCOME THEM
The following is a true story from a friend. “I was told I would be the top candidate for a promotion to a job that was being held by someone highly incompetent as soon as he retired, which was due to happen soon. In a very friendly, mentor sort of way, I had many meetings with my boss as to what needed to be done and how to develop the position. Then I slowly got some of his responsibilities (that he wasn’t doing) added to my plate. When a big project was asked of me with the promise of the job (“soon, very soon”), I bucked a little. Then a vice president pulled me aside and told me not to do it because I wasn’t really being considered for the position and the other person refused to retire anyway. Under the guise of mentorship and ‘earning my stripes,’ they were trying to get me to do someone else’s job (who was getting paid five times as much as I was), and they never intended to promote me. I was more than a little angry and went to a competitor as soon as a decent opening came along.”
Just about every organization struggles (some harder than others) to improve their “people” aspects. Currently many organizations are looking to improve one of the following:
50
• • • •
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Performance Management Development Plans Hiring Strategies Creating a Culture of Recognition
These four functional components of organizational development form what we call an Engagement Ring. Because these areas are essential (though often poorly addressed), organizations form committees, teams, and projects to “fix” one or more of these concerns. One of the best things about the Engagement Ring may be that the smallest pocket of maturity can embrace the behaviors within it and be successful at them. The good news is also the bad news—the components of the Engagement Ring can be addressed separately, but they are much more alike than they are different. Although you can find Champions for each, it will become evident quickly that they work best when there is a combination of all four. It would be understating their level of cohesiveness to even label them synergistic. They are actually critically interdependent on each other, and together they form an essential organizational subsystem. By addressing these functional components together as a system rather than as individual components, an organization can create a more fully engaged workforce. In turn, the workforce can reap the benefits of an engaged, proactive, and positive organization. This does not mean we want you to implement all four in a given pocket of maturity; on the contrary, find a Champion for any of the four components and support them in their growth. But, when they have become successful in the area, see if you can introduce one of the remaining interdependent components before moving on to another behavioral area. As organizations try to live the mantra of “do more with less” and “continuous improvement,” they find that their employees’ behaviors run the gamut from highly engaged to totally disengaged. If the highly engaged employee can work within the culture of the organization and communicate his passion in a manner that is politically correct for his institution, he will likely go far. He will become a “favored son” of leadership and should do well. But the others who are only mildly engaged—or worse, disengaged—tend to make up the majority in organizations. These less passionate workers often define the overall culture. The moderately engaged employees naturally want to grow and receive raises and promotions. Over time, the
IDENTIFYING THE OBSTACLES AND LEARNING HOW TO OVERCOME THEM
51
engaged-but-not-favored employees either look elsewhere for new challenges, or run the risk of becoming “infected” with frustration at the behavior of the disengaged and the blind tolerance of leadership. The disengaged employees, for their part, become disgruntled because they feel overworked, underutilized, underappreciated, or unwanted. Although most organizations realize these problems exist, they only have a limited notion of how to deal with them. Usually management decides that each disengaged employee is a unique case who needs to “get motivated in 30 days or else.” Often the root of the problem is not with the individual, but with the way the organization engages (or fails to engage) the individual. Organizations that only want to motivate people by managing their performance can inadvertently create a fog of despair in which otherwise enthusiastic employees become disenchanted and removed from the very activities they should be contributing to. That might sound strange; how else do you manage people’s performance if not by performance management? Part of the issue is that performance management is used as a euphemism for fix them. Managers try to use performance management as a tool rather than part of the overall system. By performance management we mean just one part of an overarching system, one which defines both how well the workforce is engaged in its work environment, and to what extent the organization is engaged with its workforce. As many human resource studies have shown, employees certainly care about their compensation, and nobody wants to receive (or can stay employed long with) poor performance reviews. But the work environment actually carries more weight with an employee’s satisfaction than compensation, according to hundreds of employee studies. And job training, professional development, hiring strategies, and recognition rank very high as positive attributes and motivators. “The organization says I need more training to do my job, but they don’t want to pay for it. I don’t have the money!” It’s likely that this person won’t be working for her current company for long. “I thought the organization would pay for me to take college classes that would enable me to grow in my job and get promoted. Turns out they will only pay 10 percent.” Ouch—say goodbye to aggressive young talent. “Sometimes people get promoted to supervisor, but every time they need to fill a higher-level position, they bring someone in from the outside.” OK, maybe you’ll get 4 years from a real achiever, but then she’s gone, possibly to a competitor, because
52
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
the grass looks (or is) greener outside your company. Companies lament that they continue to bleed talent to competitors, but they foster this trend by not growing talent internally, by not rewarding risk-taking, and ignoring innovators. Workers quickly learn by example whether the organization will help them grow or if their best chance of development is updating their resume. From hiring the right people (based on attitude, personality, and potential) to developing your workforce so that they will grow (even if that means losing them to another company or career), the organization can take control of its future through its engagement with its workforce. Managing performance, when combined with a culture of recognition, morphs into coaching, mentoring, and finally leading. When the four components of the Engagement Ring are viewed and used as inseparable parts of a critical whole, the potential for growth improves exponentially—for the individual as well as the organization. We’ll show how the four points on the Engagement Ring, when addressed as a system, lead to far greater gains than focusing on just one or two parts.
CHAPTER 5
USING PERFORMANCE-MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO SHAPE AND MONITOR BOTH PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATION GROWTH
You know you’re in an immature organization when the annual performance review solicits fear, anger, frustration, or disappointment.
If your idea of performance management is the tools and techniques a supervisor uses to “fix” the poorer performers, you will be disappointed with this chapter. But don’t skip it (we wrote it for you). If you suspect that performance management should be more than an annual “grade,” and is only a part of a system rather than a single tool, you will find lots of encouragement within the following pages. If you read this and feel as if you are the choir, listening to the same sermon for the tenth time in a week, please accept our apologies and admiration. Performance management has been practiced with excellent results by many athletic coaches. The coach recruits the talent needed to make the team better. The coach deals with losing talent to other teams, to retirement, and to injury. The coach figures out how to help the team perform at its best, given the talents and skills of the players. The coach works to improve the skill sets of the players, sometimes changing their roles to better benefit the team. We can learn everything we need to learn about performance management from these coaches. They don’t wait until the end of the season to discuss performance. They don’t expect their players to perform skills they’ve never been taught or exposed to. They don’t
54
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
try to “fix” a player—they teach, train, and coach. Their purpose is to help the player perform better. Their goal is to help the players on the team work together to succeed. They help them see the common goal, the purpose of the team, and then they work to make the team the best it can be. The coach doesn’t keep the evaluations or metrics of performance a secret. Feedback is not arbitrary or infrequent. Information is shared readily, honestly, and sincerely. If the feedback is positive, there are smiles all around. When the feedback is negative, though, there may be some frowns, but there will also be more specialized training, more practice, and more experiments to discover ways to improve. There’s an old joke: “That restaurant serves such bad food,” says one. “Yes, and in such small portions too!” says the other. We’ve found the same sad joke in the performance-review practices in many organizations—poorly handled and done far too infrequently. For years, human resource groups have been urging supervisors, managers, directors, and leaders to offer more informal reviews to their direct reports (such as immediate positive feedback or immediate course correction). They’ve encouraged making formal performance reviews as objective as possible, tying them to specific performance examples (examples written down and filed by supervisors as soon as possible after they are observed). Perhaps most significant of all, Human Resource studies show the benefits of managing performance rather than just handing out reviews. If you skimmed through this book before reading, or paid particular attention to the table of contents, you may have gotten the impression that all of the mature behaviors we present are somehow interrelated. This is neither a mistake nor a coincidence. Performance-management behavior has significant roots in the identification of the unit’s mission, vision, and goals. It also clearly ties to the action items (and position description and training plan), which a given worker can be evaluated against. How we develop our people also effects how they perform their jobs—not only in job training, but also in the learning environment we create. We offer a simple principle: you cannot (fairly) hold a worker responsible for performance at a given level if the worker has not attained the skills needed. A coach cannot expect a player to perform in a given manner unless the coach has taught the skill in that way.
USING PERFORMANCE-MANAGEMENT TOOLS
55
Too often, organizations fall prey to the allure of the “perfect hire.” This applicant’s resume not only exactly matches each prerequisite for the position, but it also indicates that the applicant excels in every one of the “preferred” items. If the job requires a bachelor’s degree, the applicant has a master’s in the field. If the job requires three-years experience, the applicant has six. Of course, the organization wouldn’t be able to afford this “perfect hire” if she existed, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from trying or from believing she’s out there somewhere. Some excellent books go into the logic of hiring based on talent, attitude, drive, and self-discipline instead of a long laundry list of skills. We’re not going to rehash those lessons. But we do want to stress the principle that guides them. Skills can, and should, be taught, while talent is more inherent. Job descriptions should be based on the ability to learn (and unlearn and learn anew), not on a history of performance. Even if you can’t allow yourself to follow this prescription, you will inevitably hire someone who requires training. If you hire someone who has 50 percent of the skills the position needs, you’re probably doing an outstanding job of recruiting. So, the other 50 percent should be trained. And only after the worker is trained successfully can you rightfully hold him accountable for that skill set during a performance review. Before we evaluate the performance of the worker on the basis of our preconceived notion of good vs. bad work, we have to evaluate the relevancy and adequacy of the training. Perhaps the worker is still weak at a given skill because the training was less than adequate. We must first ascertain that the training was not at fault. If the training was adequate, we need to discuss why the worker cannot perform the skill to the level we require. If the worker continually fails to attain the skill, evaluate his ability to learn and his desire to do so. Attaining the skills necessary to do the job, at the level necessary, is a valid performance-management issue if the skill is attainable. It would be unfair for the basketball coach to expect, regardless of the amount of training, the five-foot, hundred-pound player to defend the opposing team’s center or to become an inside presence. The player’s abilities may not allow him to do so. But, if the worker has the required abilities and you’ve provided good training, you can look toward performance management. After you have trained workers and ensured they have attained the skills necessary, you can judge their performance. Now we have to tackle the word judge.
56
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
A performance review is not a simple critique of the quality of work. It’s an opportunity to dialogue with the worker about the expectations you as a supervisor have and the expectations she as a worker has for herself. As with all measures, there needs to be a range of success, not a single success point—a goal to shoot for, which, if achieved, should result in celebration and reward. A threshold to meet or surpass must be set, which, if we fall below, we can then expect some remediation to occur to help us avoid continuing this low level of performance. A manager who embraces the principles inherent to this level of performance management may find the concept of an annual review odd. This manager would have built rapport with the worker and provided regular feedback without need of an annual appointment. This same manager probably encourages workers to set the range of expectations for their performance, track progress, and report on their results. Unfortunately, many managers don’t feel they have time to perform such “touchyfeely” activities. Regardless of whether the expectations are mandated, developed by the manager, or self-prescribed by the worker, it becomes a standard for the worker to know where he stands. The range between the goal and the threshold describes the level many performance reviews call “meets expectations.” This is not mediocre performance; this is performance that meets the practical level of expectation, given the position description, the skill set of the worker, the resources provided, and the time allowed. Working consistently within this range is equivalent to “being in the zone.” The purpose of clearly defined goals and the threshold of performance is to allow the supervisor to assist the worker in becoming better. The supervisor may observe the work or its outcome hourly, daily, weekly, or perhaps even monthly, depending on the organization’s deliverables. Observations need to be jotted down and added to the worker’s file. The supervisor must watch for trends—a trend to excel, a trend to stay within the range, a trend to fall below the range every Monday or Friday. But observables must be documented before they become a blur. “Let’s see, it’s been a year since Martha’s review. Seems to me she hasn’t done anything spectacular in a while.” The workforce quickly learns that it’s a question of “what have you done for me lately,” instead of “how valuable are you to the organization.” This is the epitome of poor preparation for a formal review, and indicative that frequent informal reviews have not
USING PERFORMANCE-MANAGEMENT TOOLS
57
been occurring. Perhaps your experiences are not this drastic. Perhaps it’s as innocent as asking the worker to provide a list of accomplishments. While this may ensure that the supervisor doesn’t miss anything, the worker may rightly ask, “Why doesn’t my supervisor already know?” It’s a curious phenomenon, that of managers often jotting down and tracking every fault they observe in their workforce, but failing to document the positives. No wonder workers fail to trust management. No wonder management develops a jaundiced viewpoint of its own teams. The ultimate goal of a performance review should be to assist the worker in improving, not in documenting problem cases so there is evidence to support punitive action. It should also not be used as a tool for providing recognition or reward; if you are waiting for the periodic review to recognize performance, you are way late. The performance review is a valuable tool for improvement if it is used to provide a means of feedback that clearly communicates where the worker needs to focus his efforts. To succeed, performance management must be an ongoing, constant activity, not a periodic event. That’s worth repeating: performance management is an ongoing, constant activity, not an event. The performance review is only one tool a manager should use in managing performance of her staff. Other tools include: management by wandering around (writing down observables), management by objectives, or development plans. Another example of poor performance management is the misuse of performance reviews. Sometimes management chooses to make the performance-review process into an exercise in statistical normality. This misuse, or abuse, involves collecting all the reviews in a department or entire organization and calculating the ratio of ratings. If more than (typically) 5 percent of the employee reviews exceed standards, leadership directs managers to shift the curve, reducing the percentage, thereby increasing the percentage of “needs improvement.” Why would leadership take such action? Perhaps they believe that, by raising the bar, fewer employees will expect merit raises. Perhaps they believe they can more readily prepare to dispose of a portion of the “needs improvement” group. The reality, however, is ugly. No group of managers can long hide the fact that they were forced to reevaluate their staffs (downward). Staff mistrust of management grows, compounded by manager mistrust of leaders. Is it any wonder that cynicism is so strong in many organizational cultures?
58
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Performance Management is not: • • • •
A way to “fix” a poor performer An event A one-way discussion A secret
Performance Management is: • • • •
Focused on helping the worker improve A tool for frequent conversation Open, honest, and sincere Based on clearly articulated goals and thresholds
CHAPTER 6
LIKE CHAMPION ATHLETES, YOUR CHAMPIONS NEED DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN PEAK PERFORMANCE
You know you’re in an immature organization when an employee’s development plan consists of goals created by the supervisor without input from the employee.
Training is the information, knowledge, and skills needed to perform the job. Education is everything else, including all personal or professional development plans. Job training can come in many forms: on-the-job training (OJT), reading books, attending classes, or something as simple as a checklist of steps to follow. Job training is very necessary and has to do with the job you are currently performing. Learning a new machine that helps accomplish that job is still within the realm of training. Professional and personal development are more complex. These are mature behaviors that can reap many benefits for an organization. We separate professional development from occupational training because development goes far beyond “the job.” As with all mature plans, the professional development plan is a living document. This means that it’s to be used on a regular basis and should demonstrate this use readily. There should be notes made in the margins, and the information in it should be updated periodically. It should not be looked at only on an annual basis and otherwise ignored. It should not adorn the shelf. A professional development plan is used for evaluating, scheduling, and tracking training and education for an individual. To
60
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
effectively develop a living plan, you will have to identify what is needed (training) and what is wanted (education). This is the part you will need to sell your Champion on. He will need to build a comprehensive list of the tasks, with skill competency levels, for each job he supervises. Regardless of whether the employee already has the needed skills, this step is necessary to ensure there is a complete plan. The WIIFM will be evident if the Champion ever has to replace a worker. One selling point can be that, if through all of the other work you are doing with the Champion, he wants to make a case to his supervisor for an increase in staffing, he’ll need to have a complete list of the tasks and skills required for the position. This same list can come in handy when arguing for an increase in pay for existing workers. As with all plans we recommend, the format is secondary—as long as the essential components are in place and, most importantly, the plan is used. Professional development plans allow management to anticipate, prepare for, and spend, their training/education budgets effectively. Professional development plans also provide • A clear picture to the employee what skill areas he needs to focus on • A guideline on how to obtain the training necessary
A professional development plan is essentially a documentation of “what,” “when,” “how,” and “level of attainment.” What—a list of knowledge/skills to be trained When—schedule for the attainment of training How—in what manner will the training be delivered Level of attainment—a means of tracking and assessing the level of knowledge/skill attained
The plan can be used to evaluate the employee’s skill level, select training, schedule training, track training, and evaluate the effectiveness of a given training event. Any document that captures the four components mentioned in the box qualifies as a professional development plan.
CHAMPIONS NEED DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN PEAK PERFORMANCE
61
TRAINING COMPONENTS To develop the training portion of the professional development plan, each of the four components must be fleshed out. Any assessment methodology that enables the author to capture the knowledge, tasks, and skills necessary to perform the job will work. In the past, we have used occupational surveys, observation, and interviews to capture the tasks performed by a given position. Because all tasks should tie into the mission of the unit, and ultimately of the organization, one method for creating the development plan is to start at the top and work down to the unit level. At each organizational level, the deliverables must be identified. What products or services does the unit deliver? What is the organization responsible for? These define the ways in which the organization supports the mission. Products and services can then be broken down into the tasks performed to deliver them. A more mature organization may have the “hows” to accomplish the tasks documented (see the chapter on Policy Framework) where appropriate. At each level, the following steps need to be carried out: 1. Identify the mission. 2. What does the unit deliver? a. What products does it deliver? b. What services does it deliver? 3. Identify the unit’s task list. a. What are the tasks involved? b. What knowledge is necessary to perform the task? c. What skill is necessary to perform the task? It should be evident how the strategic plan fits with professional development plans. The tasks identified in the strategic plan may require skills and knowledge that the workforce doesn’t currently have. Besides the day-to-day activities that support the mission, these tasks should be added to the development plan. A professional development plan is a tool for scheduling, attaining, and tracking both training and education. To do it right requires the information above to be aligned with each level of the organization. It is irresponsible for the subunit to train its workforce to perform tasks that do not align with the subunit or unit mission. A clear definition of what the unit does and how it supports the overall organization’s mission is essential to ensure resources are not wasted.
62
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN: EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT Because these training items are not necessary to the successful performance of an individual’s current job, there is much more flexibility in the list. The knowledge and skills included in this portion are recommended by a supervisor, mentor, coach, or the employee. The items are not necessary to do today’s job; they are above or beyond the job’s requirements. They can help with the employee’s professional development or with the employee’s personal ambitions, needs, or wants (see the chapter on Sharing the Wealth: Career Planning/Coaching). It is totally up to your organization to decide how much support it will provide to the personal development of the worker. If the worker wants to pursue a career in a different field, will the company provide educational assistance? If an auto mechanic wants to change careers and become a dental technician, will the auto shop help pay for the schooling? There is no requirement for this and it usually depends on the organization’s outlook on education. The U.S. Military provides educational assistance irrespective of the field of interest. The premise is that the more education a service member receives, the better. It improves the person. Unfortunately, many companies cannot afford (or will not afford, or will not expend energy figuring out how they could afford) to supplement education in areas that won’t improve their own bottom line. This is not a bad thing. It’s just the way it is. Every organization can and should assist employees in finding their vocations (where their passions lie) and include those in the development plans. Funding for those items is a separate issue, as is providing time for the coursework. HOW DO YOU TAILOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO INDIVIDUALS? An employee’s supervisor has ultimate responsibility for the employee’s training, though often a trainer (other than the supervisor) conducts the actual training. Training sources should be researched and selected on the basis of cost, ability, and availability. Some training is best conducted “just-in-time” or “on-the-job.” Some training is best accomplished through a formal classroom environment, and some through self-directed materials. For each training item, the trainer, trainee, and supervisor should decide what would
CHAMPIONS NEED DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN PEAK PERFORMANCE
63
best fulfill the need. The focus isn’t so much on how, as each plan is as unique as the individual. The key is to ensure that the plans are tailored. HOW DO YOU USE THE PLAN WHEN YOU ARE THE SUPERVISOR? The supervisor and the employee use the development plan as a guideline for when, where, what, and how to train the employee on the knowledge and skill requirements for the job. The supervisor uses the plan to communicate the employee’s status (skill level) and then to schedule the training. It is further used to assess the progress the employee makes toward achieving the required skill level. One way managers use the two-faceted plan is to require workers to have a certain job skill level (e.g. 85% proficiency on system X) before they will support the employee’s educational portion of the professional development plan. HOW DO YOU USE THE PLAN WHEN IT’S YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN? We can say that the trainee, the trainer, and the supervisor all have some responsibility in any development plan. It’s your plan and you know yourself better than anyone else (at least you’re supposed to). Take account of your skills and knowledge set, and honestly assess them. Make every attempt to not just meet, but exceed, the proposed schedule of training and level of knowledge and skills required. No matter what type of organization you are working for or volunteering with, your role is to add value. And the best way to add value to your organization is to add value to yourself. We have seen the rare (but not extinct) case of the worker who has absolutely no ambition and no interest in education or training. This we hope to be an anomaly. Even if the worker is near retirement, the leading expert in their field, or disgruntled, there should be a willingness to learn. Learning means growing. Like all living things, when we stop growing we start dying. Management must encourage its workforce to continuously grow. Perhaps this should be the new mantra—instead of continuous improvement, management should tout continuous learning. You’ll have to determine if the nonlearner is actually against learning, or if she just doesn’t trust you.
64
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
By the way, we find another rare (albeit more frequent) case—the manager who is happy when he finds a worker who doesn’t want to have a development plan because it saves him time, money, and effort. THE CASE FOR EDUCATION In many organizations, education takes a backseat to operational issues: the daily grind, the periodic crisis, and the occasional job training. Education—the focused effort to develop the whole person—is not a critical area for most managers, and, surprisingly, most employees. In an immature environment, education is actually viewed as a threat to the survival of the company. An immature organization believes it needs super heroes (and will coddle them in a number of ways), but the risk of encouraging or paying for education beyond the immediate job requirements seems too dangerous: if people’s horizons were expanded, they might leave for greener pastures. While the super heroes are lauded, they are also coveted jealously. WHEN GOOD IS BAD It’s been said that the perfect is the enemy of the good—meaning that when we try too hard for perfection, we may waste resources and overlook times when we’ve done a good job. In chasing perfection, we fail to recognize the good job, applaud it, and then our lack of satisfaction with “good” creates frustrations for our workforce. However, it can also be said that good is the enemy of great. If we’re good at what we do, we can become complacent and avoid the risks necessary to become great. Good is bad when it refuses to seek new challenges. To fully appreciate this predicament, we have to look at what makes an immature organization semi successful in its market. Yes, an immature organization can in fact be quite successful. It is this line-of-business success, whatever products or services they may be, which is also the greatest obstacle to the organization’s attempts to mature. An organization that is relatively successful has a harder time understanding why it should change. Because the organization produces and delivers at a level acceptable to its customers and owners, the organizational culture comes to believe that it should not risk change. “Good” becomes the enemy of “great.” Some customers, owners, and managers adore the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix
CHAMPIONS NEED DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN PEAK PERFORMANCE
65
it.” The problem, of course, is the lesson Americans learned in the last decades of the twentieth century: the consequences of stagnation. Nothing stays still for long and survives. An organization will either grow or regress, and just as biology has shown of all living organisms, there is no sustainable way to stand still. In a mature organization, education is viewed quite differently. In a mature environment, leadership wants its employees to be innovative, progressive, and to excel at critical thinking in order to be able to think outside the box. A mature organization finds ways to reward excellence without pushing their employees into positions they don’t want (or don’t really have the talent for). The key to the education component of professional development is the provision of career paths or other creative opportunities for the members of the organization. What other creative opportunities? How about offering high performers the time to spend part of each day or each week mentoring others? Giving them, or allowing them to apply for a 3-month or 6-month research sabbatical? Letting them exchange some percentage of their work hours (while the organization covers their salaries) to teach in area schools or community colleges? If it’s worth doing, it’s worth planning. A PLAN TO DEVELOP A number of organizations may think they are already doing everything in their power to promote professional development. They pay for one or more professional association memberships; they pay for travel to one or more annual professional conferences (which generally include the more expensive hotels); they provide some tuition assistance allowing employees to take almost any imaginable college course. Unfortunately, while not altogether immature, these represent examples of low maturity thinking. First, these kinds of examples are often seen as perks by employees, and treated that way by employers. Bring back your expense receipts, but “shucks, no need to bring back and share the knowledge gained.” Second, these kinds of examples are generally “after hours” opportunities, which cut into personal and family time. But third and worst, these kinds of examples lack planning. Are these opportunities offered and taken in alignment with the greater plan, the organizational strategic plan, or a department’s training and development plan? While it’s fun to visit a bustling city or sunny locale, and quite pleasurable to
66
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
stay in a fancy hotel, what does the attendee gain or bring back to the organization? For high-maturity organizations, professional development is treated like a professional obligation. If a high performer opts for a 3-month sabbatical to do research, then wouldn’t you expect a research proposal that identifies the links between the upcoming research and the organization’s strategic plan? If an employee who is being groomed for a higher position is going to transfer to another country, is it an employee “perk” to pay for language training for the employee and family, or a strategic investment by the company? By knowing where the organization wants to grow, it can help its people grow in symbiotic ways. But wait, isn’t it still true that, after all this investment in professional development, which by definition goes beyond the job, employees sometimes leave? Certainly! But how do you want employees to leave your organization—jumping ship as a means to get a raise or promotion, or to move forward in their careers because the opportunity is right? If you would prefer the second, congratulations, you are thinking like an experienced Division I college coach. If you show that you care about the individual’s development, you will have no problem with recruiting the best. Half of the coach’s sales pitch to prospective athletes to come to her school is that the great players will have an opportunity to be seen, recognized, and eventually play at the next level. Unless your company is already at the top of the heap, helping your best get to the top should be a component of your strategic plan. Remember, many times those professional players come back to help coach. The best coaches take this very seriously. They hire assistant coaches, not only to reduce the workload, but with the explicit purpose of growing the players. The head coach wants even his or her assistants to grow and develop—to the point that one of them will one day take over the team, while others will head teams at other colleges and universities, perhaps even in the pros. Does this sound crazy? How crazy is creating another and yet another positive personal “networking node” for your organization? You have to ask yourself, is it crazy for leaders to go to all the effort to build such relationships, or is it crazy to have leaders just pay salaries to some number of unknown employees who are “darned lucky they got their medical insurance coverage upgrade this year?” Mature organizations, like great Division I athletic programs, don’t fear losing good people. They only fear keeping people who
CHAMPIONS NEED DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO MAINTAIN PEAK PERFORMANCE
67
won’t or can’t grow. If you want an example of this, count how many GE vice presidents since 1985 are now presidents or CEOs of other Fortune 500 companies. Use the professional development plan to satisfy the training requirements for each position in your unit and then expand it to cover the education of the worker. This will go a long way toward maturing the organization and building a loyal employee base. This doesn’t mean they won’t leave the organization for a better job; it means that if and when they do leave, they’ll become a valuable networking asset versus a disgruntled exemployee.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 7
NEED ADDITIONAL CHAMPIONS? TRY THESE HIRING STRATEGIES
You know you’re in an immature organization when your turnover rate for new hires is twice what it is for those who have been with your organization for over 10 years.
Over the years, technical staff members (or content experts) looking to advance were pushed toward becoming managers as no clear paths for technical advancement existed. Some succeeded in management and even became CEOs. Some failed and went back to technical work. Is any organization a straight-line hierarchy from doorman to CEO? No. Can any personality type fulfill any role in an organization? Perhaps, but not necessarily well. Hiring, which includes promoting someone from within to a new job, is both part of professional development and part of organizational strategy. Hiring an employee is about far more than simply filling a vacancy or getting someone to agree to do whatever is in the job description. Every hiring should have an eye to the future, a tie to strategy. Bringing in a new person to an open position means believing that person can and will succeed in the job. Likewise, promoting an internal person to an open position means exactly the same thing: believing the person will succeed. And what happens when a person succeeds in a new position? The organization benefits. If leadership looks at a vacancy and realizes there is no internal candidate prepared to take on the responsibilities, then leadership should be flogging itself for failing to develop its people. OK, that
70
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
may be a bit strong; there could be situations where people are partially ready, but the role is too critical to risk having an internal person fail. In that case, leadership should bring in an outsider, and one of the first things that outsider should do is finish educating one or more internal people to be able to handle that job. But if there is a limited number of jobs in an organization, how can you offer promotions once someone has reached the top pay grade in his or her area? However disconcerting this may sound, the answer is to establish job families based on skills, then align those skills in a qualification matrix so all the staff and managers can see what skills are required for upward movement and what skills apply across families (because sometimes people actually want to move from sales to management or from accounting to information technologies). DEVELOP COMMONALITY AND CONSISTENCY ACROSS JOBS AND JOB FAMILIES Any organization older than 10 years, or one newly merged with another, may be burdened by legacy approaches to personnel management. The approaches manifest themselves in differences and inconsistencies in titles, position descriptions, and professional development opportunities. We spent a great deal of time a few years ago working with one organization of over 200 people, each holding one of what we discovered to be 140 different position descriptions! Our deliverable was the creation of a reduced number of consistent position descriptions across the organization, providing a more systematic way to support recruitment, advancement, training, professional development, and performance reviews. QUALIFICATION MATRIX A qualification matrix was developed to assist in identifying the requirements for the different job families at each career tier. A job family is a grouping of jobs based on common skill sets, competencies, and responsibilities that may span a number of levels within an organization. Job families are based on functions within the whole organization, and are not meant to represent units or departments or other “territorial” boundaries. Some examples of possible job families include:
NEED ADDITIONAL CHAMPIONS? TRY THESE HIRING STRATEGIES
• • • • • • • •
71
Engineering (design and/or support) Production / Application Development Content Development Integration Sales / Marketing Customer Services / Relations Organization Services (or Administrative Services) Management
The benefits of retaining high-performing employees have been studied extensively—the cost of hiring people at comparable skill levels is tremendous. And if we look at what we want in the ideal employee, we’ll find such a complicated mix that it will be impossible to hire such a person. Mature organizations care more about talent, attitude, and personality than skill set. Skills and knowledge can be attained and enhanced easily (see the chapter on Development Plans), compared to developing a person’s personality. Personality traits, such as values, morals, a sense of humor, and the ability to relate to and interact with others, are present in youth and refined over a lifetime. We believe immature organizations spend 80 percent of their hiring time (and piles of resumes show this) looking at skill sets. In the event of two or more candidates with similar skill sets, the hiring agent or team will then use personality as a tiebreaker. Organizations should reverse these priorities, putting personality and attitude ahead of skill sets. Candidates should be evaluated first on their ingrained talents and personalities, and then their resumes listing experience and current skills can be attached. As with most of the suggestions in this book, this one seems like common sense—especially if the job you’re trying to fill is based on technologies or methods that are more likely to change than stay the same. But most of these common sense things are also harder to do up front. Of course, in the long run, they pay back the early investment far beyond what it cost. If an organization has a comprehensive growth program for its personnel, the organization can build loyalty. Through the development program, incentives, and career-path planning, the organization can grow expertise and (more importantly) the synergies necessary to make it a winner. Career-pathing has to be more than identifying where employees can transition once they determine that they are accomplished (or bored) in their current positions. Careerpathing must be symbiotic—a tool the organization uses to benefit
72
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
from the talents and abilities of its people, and a tool its people can use for personal and career growth. For several decades we’ve noticed many examples of people working in the wrong jobs, bosses ignoring their employees’ talents, and disgruntled employees quitting because they were underdeveloped and underutilized. There were people who left decent jobs not because they were underappreciated, but because they were undervalued. While it’s true that employees do better with encouragement and appreciation, many workers leave because the “thank you’s” ring hollow. It’s a frustrating existence to be constantly encouraged to be more productive at the wrong list of tasks. As Scott Adams has so clearly shown us for several years in his Dilbert comic strip, even a poor supervisor can urge direct reports to be “more productive.” Engaged employees don’t have to be motivated to work at peak productivity. This brings us to a recurring theme for any organizational consultant: Is the glass half full or half empty? Let’s look at this simplistic view of optimism vs. pessimism from another perspective. Do you believe people have to earn your trust, or can they only lose it? Do you believe that people would rather get out of doing work, or would they rather do a good job? If you truly reside in the pessimistic camp, your organization will never make you happy; you will feel no sense of fulfillment, and you will actually infect the organization over time. And if your organization is overrun with pessimists (or more correctly, the tired, the bored, the unenthusiastic, and the Heck No’s), then the organization is doomed to either fail altogether or only eek out an existence as a visibly immature organization. We are not suggesting that everyone become “yes men” and naively optimistic. But the workforce’s outlook on their environment and the future plays a pivotal role in why organizations end up as immature. If you believe people normally want to do a good job, then what keeps them from excelling? Part of the failure can be attributed to a lack of encouragement, support, or appreciation from the supervisor. Many supervisors have learned this lesson and readily dole out appreciation whenever appropriate. But these same supervisors often fail to find out what talents and abilities their people have beyond what is required to do the day-to-day tasks. They miss the barely hidden talents, wants, and needs their people have. Otherwise-good supervisors often fail to look for the best fit for their people, and only worry about getting the work done in their areas. Using some of our example job families above, a qualification matrix might look something like:
NEED ADDITIONAL CHAMPIONS? TRY THESE HIRING STRATEGIES
73
Table 7-1 Engineering
Production
Sales
Customer Services
Organization Services Management
10 9 8 7
6
“1” would show a list of entry-level skills required within a family, while “10” would show a list of highly developed skills. Looking across families, a 2 in Production might have a number of skills in common with a 2 in Customer Services. A 4 in Production might have a number of skills in common with a 1 or 2 in Engineering. A 5 in Organization Services might have a number of skills in common with a 1 or 2 in Management. Overlapping skills do not mean people have to move in those directions; it only represents information about what skills an employee might need to develop should she want to move across families rather than specialize (vertically) in one family. If the career paths are genuine, and not just a flowchart of possible positions an employee can apply for when an opening occurs, it does wonders for workers at every level. If the career path program is based on a combination of the wants and needs of employees and the talents and abilities required, trust will grow as people understand various job requirements. Supervisors can provide coaching to staff who want to grow within the organization, and both supervisors and employees can use development plans to plan skill development/improvement and track progress. Career-pathing is an important part of development and essential in the hiring of new employees. The hiring manager has to view the position posting and the candidates through development and career-pathing lenses. Hiring for attitude, personality, energy, and drive are much better than looking for documented skill sets. Remember to separate what you really want (a team player who will be an asset to the organization) from what the job description requires (a set of skills). The job requirements should be a factor, but
74
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
not the primary one, especially if those skills can be trained on the job or at minimal costs. The analogy of a college sports team is a good one for the Engagement Ring. We want to find players who fit our “system” and are hard workers who want to improve. If you don’t believe your organization has a “system” to fit into, you are mistaken. All organizations have systems; we call them cultures. The real question is, do we want to hire people who fit in well with our existing system, or do we want to install a new system? If we want a new system, we need to hire players (workers) who will enable the change from our current system to the projected one. Of course, we’re back to strategic planning; we have to know where we want to go before we can recruit the right players to fit in. We don’t expect, or suggest, that you will change the processes your institution uses for hiring, but you do have the ability to change how you use those processes. If you are only looking for a technician who can do certain tasks at certain levels, that’s who you will most likely hire. But if you are looking for enthusiastic team players who will make the other members on the team better, you need to actively recruit those types of people. As you can now see, performance management, development planning, and hiring strategies all tie together. The next chapter completes the “people” system, our Engagement Ring.
CHAPTER 8
CREATING A CULTURE OF RECOGNITION: BUILD AN ENVIRONMENT FOR CHAMPIONS TO THRIVE
You know you’re in an immature organization when recognition is saved for the annual report or the company picnic rather than shared regularly and immediately.
Recognition can be positive or negative; its value can be seen in how much worth the recipient puts in it. Recognition is so cherished that when deprived of it, people will seek out even negative recognition. We’ve encountered a number of organizations that have some very peculiar ideas about what recognition is and what it’s for. Recognition is not an incentive program that only rewards the top seller or the person who comes up with the best money-saving suggestion of the year. Recognition does not have to involve putting people under a bright spotlight on stage in front of the entire organization. Recognition is not something to dole out to one “outstanding” person each year. Recognition is simply acknowledging people, the work they do, and how they go about doing it. Recognition can take many forms: • Recognizing new employees. • Recognizing employees at certain time intervals with the organization (such as 10-year anniversary). • Recognizing employees (teams as well as individuals) who achieve a new certification, new skill, or some breakthrough success. • Recognizing someone who achieves a strategic goal, finishes training, earns a degree, or reaches a personal milestone (getting married or having a child, for example).
76
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
• Recognition can also acknowledge all kinds of intangibles like team spirit or an unsinkable can-do attitude. The experts on recognition, at least the two we like—Adrian Gostick and Chester Elton (of Carrot fame)—make it very simple, “Praise Effort, Reward Results.”1 We heartily agree. Their books on recognition are excellent, easy-to-read reminders of what we’ve learned throughout our lives, that the world is a better place when we give praise and recognize others. Out of the four Engagement Ring components, recognition may be the most important. Without it, your organization may never overcome Organizational Immaturity; with it, your organization can do the impossible. There are no silver bullets, but sincerely caring about your employees, co-workers, and leadership gets as close as possible. The key is not to only practice recognition techniques but also develop a true culture of recognition. One in which people readily share their efforts, successes, and failures. A culture in which there are common goals and common purpose. But as with all of these behaviors, an immature organization cannot create a culture of recognition enterprise-wide; it just won’t happen. What happens when an immature organization tries to build a culture of recognition? First of all, the phrase “culture of recognition” might receive deer-in-the-headlight looks. Second, because immature organizations are low on trust, a significant percentage of employees will openly mock the new initiative (“Oh, I wonder who the favorites will be?”). Third, the organization will likely try to implement a “big program,” getting carried away with putting on a luau celebration, making the honorees parade across a stage wearing a lei of flowers around their necks, and then urging them with applause to perform the limbo in front of their peers. Instead of attempting to institute a “program” across the organization, recognition has to be learned. When recognition works best, it works its way into the culture like a quiet symphony, potentially drowning out some negative cultural noise, such as meetings that devolve into “pity parties.” Recognition is not about rewards, though there may be some. It’s about recognizing. Sincerely letting individuals and teams know what they’ve done is appreciated. What they do, what they’ll be doing in the future, and who they are mean something to the organization. Sounds simple, but of course there are some complications and booby traps along the way. To borrow a phrase from Forest Gump— recognition is like a box of chocolates; there’s something for everyone.
CREATING A CULTURE OF RECOGNITION
77
One person may enjoy public recognition, while others may be uncomfortable being in front of any kind of audience. If you recognize everyone in the same way, you may actually end up causing them embarrassment or pain. Some people might like to leave an hour early, or have some colorful balloons tied to their chair, or share brownies in the lunchroom. Some people enjoy such things as being asked to organize the next department party or night of bowling. Yes, strange as it may seem, some people enjoy a form of recognition that actually entails more work. But it happens to be a bit of work they just love to do or have been waiting for an opportunity to try. Of all the behaviors (processes or improvements) we cover, recognition may be the best suited to the Champion methodology. Recognition is tailor-made for the good manager to embrace, adopt, and implement within her corner of the organization. And recognition is probably the best vehicle for viral expansion—jumping from one unit to another until a critical mass is achieved. Recognition has the ability to inspire and motivate us to greater heights, making it a great area to start. Managers are repetitively introduced to the concept in almost every management-training course offered. Sometimes the basis of the concept is hidden in titles, such as “how to get the most out of your people,” or “motivating your workforce.” Sometimes the titles are less flattering, such as “dealing with difficult people.” But the underlying message comes back to treating people with respect, compassion, and sincere interest. Recognition isn’t a formulaic phrase thrown out at prearranged intervals. Recognition requires sincere interest and concern in and for others. Recognition is two parts attention and one part feedback. Recognition tells the recipient that you care. In implementing a mandatory organization-wide recognition program, we risk sending a message that we actually don’t care, that we are so poor at caring about our people that we have to create a program to force our management to care. Of course, if there is healthy recognition occurring throughout the organization, an add-on enterprise-wide program will be accepted, but we’re primarily talking about immature organizations. Recognition almost demands that it first be adopted at the lowest possible levels—by Champions, creating pockets of maturity before contemplating an organization-wide program. Recognition can be an excellent foundation for other improvement efforts. When Champions embrace recognition, or simply care about their workforce, good things happen. Trust is built and maintained. This trust allows other improvement efforts to be attempted with fewer barriers. It isn’t a panacea that will allow any and all
78
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
innovations to be freely adopted, but it does help remove one of the greatest barriers to change—lack of trust. Of course, most good managers already understand and adhere to the principles of recognition (almost all good friends do also). Unfortunately, these successful managers sometimes hoard their success. Because they receive their recognition for how well their unit does— especially compared to other company units—there is little to encourage the good manager to share her “secrets of success” with her peers. Top leadership’s mission concerning recognition programs is not to create or implement organization-wide programs. Leadership’s task is twofold: 1. Utilize good recognition principles with their direct reports and 2. Mentor, coach, and teach those direct reports how to follow the same principles with their people. Rather than devise a program involving public displays, the leadership must work with each manager to develop individual skills in this area. Of course, the normal paradox exists—immature organizations are full of managers who do not Champion change or improvement. Immature organizations are full of managers and leaders who vehemently attest that they are already good managers and have no need for training. These self-proclaimed good managers either believe they already recognize their people adequately or just don’t see the value (or need) for doing so. Recognition is so simple to do, so cost effective, and so irreplaceable that there is no excuse for not doing it. And that applies to all levels, not just leaders thanking managers and managers thanking staff. Organizations of any size have teams, even where there may be no use of the term. The accounting department, the engineering unit, the IT group— unique sections become their own teams. And team members can recognize other team members. Believe it or not, individuals can even recognize their supervisors. “Hey, boss, thanks for letting me go to my daughter’s award ceremony this morning. She got a certificate for . . .” This person could have said nothing at all because company policy entitled him to take two hours. Instead, this person just shared a bit of enthusiasm with his boss, who, at that very moment, might have been fretting about end-of-month inventory. Imagine a full orchestra, seated with their instruments, and a large audience creating a noisy growl of a hundred separate, each relatively quiet, conversation. One member of the orchestra starts playing, but the sound is so soft that no one notices. A second musician
CREATING A CULTURE OF RECOGNITION
79
joins in, then a third, then a fourth. Gradually the music builds and the audience chatter dies down. Very soon the audience is completely engaged in the music, some people swaying in their seats, some people tapping their feet or conducting with their fingers. Recognition can work much like that orchestra; by introducing a melodious sound, you can drown out and eventually eliminate the negative chatter in your organization. But it takes time. You have to win over the audience and have them focus on your composition. You want to remove the gossip and silence the disgruntled and unhappy workers. You want to promote a positive “happy to be here” attitude. What you want can be created if you take your time and don’t try to implement it organization-wide. Creating a culture of recognition isn’t easy, but at least it’s inexpensive, and the results will definitely pay for themselves. Looking back at the four parts of the Engagement Ring, we find that they not only improve the organization, but they also improve the bottom line. They truly do pay for themselves and then some. But, like all of the improvement methods, they require an investment of time and effort. They also require a realization that they will not work if you mandate them or make them an enterprise-wide program. Two warnings are called for. It is extremely dangerous to recognize and reward without sincerity. It will be noticed. The insincerity will create an environment without trust. Workers will feel manipulated and overt operations will ensue against the “establishment.” You must be sincere. Don’t fill the box or dole out recognition by rote. The other warning is based on the observation that what you reward, you encourage. If you reward the few who have knowledge, you could inadvertently encourage them to hoard information. Ensure it is clear that you are rewarding the sharing of knowledge, not the hoarding of it. Be careful of how and what you recognize and reward people for. The chapters in Part 2 are about engagement. Immature organizations have a much higher percentage of disengaged employees than mature organizations. If you consider yourself more a people person than a change agent, become a people Champion. Look for others who want to improve the way performance is managed, improve the way employees develop, create opportunities to promote from within, and believe in the power of recognition. NOTE 1. Gostick & Elton, A Carrot A Day, 5
This page intentionally left blank
PART 3
MATURE BEHAVIORS: DEVELOP AS MANY AS YOU CAN!
“The only people who actually communicate around here are the administrative assistants. I give mine a small raise every chance I get because she keeps me informed on all the rumors, and when those rumors cross over and start becoming reality. I don’t like it, but I found out during a company golf tournament a couple years ago that all the middle managers and many of the vice-presidents are just as much in the dark as me about what the top five leaders will do next. You definitely can’t trust the ‘approved’ communications, and I’d have lost my job 10 times over if I had been naïve enough to think people here were communicating honestly.”
With the Engagement Ring we presented four mature behaviors: development planning, performance management, hiring strategies, and recognition. We offered those separately from the rest of the behaviors because they’re a good place to start and they all dealt with the level of employee engagement. The following behaviors will not be new to anyone who has participated in an organizational improvement effort. Like the Engagement Ring, there are no silver bullets here, but they’re all useful. In this part we cover strategic planning, effective communication, policy framework, project management, process management, and annual internal assessments. That’s a lot to digest, so we’ll make a
82
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
seemingly odd suggestion: don’t read it all, at least not at once. Really. We have broken out these behaviors into two groupings— “mature” and “advanced”—and recommend you pick and choose which to read. First find a Champion, and then figure out what behavior they are a Champion for. Are they trying to build a solid list of goals? Are they trying to inspire with a strong vision? Are they clarifying, defining, or word-smithing their mission statement? Read the chapter on Strategic Planning and then see how you can help them. Is the organizational unit you’re visiting working on their communication skills? Are there postings of company information? Does the manager hold stand-up meetings every morning to share the latest news and direction? Does it seem that this unit knows what’s going on inside and outside the organization? Perhaps you have a Champion for “effective communications.” Read the chapter on opening channels of communication. Let your Champion read it too. See what you can do to help. See if you can leverage his or her strengths in this area. Is your Champion creating standards for the assembly line? Is she setting policy for how to interact with customers? Visit the chapter on Policy Framework. Is she a project guru, always on top of the various risks associated with time, budget, or scope? Project Management. Is she producing process documentation and flow charts showing how processes work in her area? Process Management. Did you find someone who assesses his unit on a regular basis to find areas for improvement? Does your Champion support her case with data, charts, and graphs? Internal Assessments. Of course, if you want to read them all, that’s all right too. It may be productive, especially if you are a Champion of change and you don’t know (or care) where you should start. Perhaps you just want to get a feel for all of the behaviors so you can choose one to address. We stress one because, just as you should not try to implement any one behavior (improvement effort) organization-wide, you should also not try to implement too many things at once in a single pocket of maturity.
CHAPTER 9
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
You know you’re in an immature organization when no matter how hard you try, your organization can’t plan more than one year out.
Like most of the mature behaviors available to an organization, strategic planning can be used at multiple levels or organizational sizes. Strategic planning can even be used on a personal level for your or your family’s future. Strategic planning is not restricted to the parent company, the CEO, or your organization leadership. Any pocket of maturity can plan strategically. Strategic plans are simply wellthought-out plans for how to get from where you are to where you want to be in 10 (or more) years. The plan has to be made up of clear and attainable goals, but those goals should support the attainment of an inspirational picture of the future. The goals must lead, without deviation, to the place you want to be. This picture of the future is called a vision statement. The strategic plan relies on the vision for direction and has to take into account why your organization exists. If you are a car manufacturer and decide that your vision involves selling the newest, best soft drink, you will find an irreconcilable internal conflict. Your vision for the future can change your current mission, but the change should be logical and acceptable to your workforce, your company, and your customers. If you were to change to becoming the leader in alternative fuel cars, this would be in keeping with your mission of creating
84
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
transportation vehicles. So a solid strategic plan must include a clear, well-written vision statement and a thorough understanding of the mission. The mission just “is,” while the vision describes your dreams for the future. Because a strategic plan is really a plan for a trip from your present state to an envisioned future, it only stands to reason that we’ll need to know where you currently are, where you want to go, and then figure out (in the form of goals) how to get from here to there. The mission describes why the organization exists, its purpose. The good news is that you don’t have to create a mission statement; you just have to document it. At a personal level, it would describe what you feel your purpose in life is. It could be to be a parent, it could be of a spiritual nature, or it could be to cure cancer, or create video games. Basically, it requires introspection and a clear understanding of who you are (not who you wish you were). Organizations require the same internal scrutiny. It’s hard to determine how the organization should position itself for the future if it doesn’t understand why it exists. Although many strategic plans are created as only a list of goals, we highly recommend that you clearly capture your organization’s mission first. It helps define who you are. While the mission captures why you exist, and should reflect why you are where you currently are, the vision gives you context for the future. It should describe the overall hoped-for future view. It’s actually a very high-level, future-based goal. We call it a vision because of its scope; the long-range goals you select should support ultimately reaching the vision. It describes where you want to be. At the core of the plan, we find goals. On a personal level it could be to get back to your high school weight, it could be to have a certain health rating, or it could be to retire. Goals, objectives, and action items are things management likes to see. They are concrete things that need to be done. If you write the goals well, they will be achievable, measurable, comprehensive, and aligned. Basically, they’ll allow the unit to know what they have to achieve and by when. Unlike the mission and vision, managers seem to get excited about working goals—there is a sense of accomplishment in writing a clear goal and seeing how the successful achievement of it can be reached. Warning: some managers, even some leaders, will start crafting a mission or vision and end up holding a list of goals, feeling very satisfied with their work. Find a polite way to remind them that they have to go back and work through the broader, deeper view. Actually, the workforce does really well at figuring out how to get from
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
85
where it is to where you want it to be; don’t let management have all the fun. Leadership has the tougher task of creating a tangible vision and clearly documenting the mission. Let the workforce get deeply involved in figuring out the how. HOW TO BUILD A LIVING STRATEGIC PLAN Strategic plans have a notorious reputation as shelf ware. They are built to fulfill a requirement by leadership and then put away until the next year when they are dusted off and revamped. This lack of use makes the exercise a failure. A plan is useless if it’s not used. A plan should be a living tool, used along the journey to ensure we’re heading in the right direction. The strategic plan is a map for helping us get from where we are to where we want to be. If the map stays under your car seat for the entire trip and is never referred to, you may still get to your destination on time. But if you keep getting lost, going in circles, and wasting time, you should use the map periodically. If you want to make sure you’ll make it to your destination on time, following the route you planned, you should refer to the map frequently. You should check it before you start your trip and refer to it on the way to ensure you’re making good time and are on course. More than just a map, the strategic plan provides other benefits (here comes the sales pitch). A strategic plan: • Communicates to stakeholders the plans for the future. • Documents successes/failures: Did you meet the milestones? Are you on, ahead of, or behind schedule? Does it look like you’ll succeed? Will you arrive at your destination on time? • Facilitates participation and open collaboration—when others know your goals and plans, they will more readily understand what, why, and when you’re doing what you’re doing. With understanding comes the ability and increased willingness to help. • Shares with customers and stakeholders your purpose (mission) and your vision. • Helps scope the work for the unit, and provides a way for each unit to align with the overall plan. The process of creating and implementing a viable strategic plan can be very simple. The foundation for strategic planning lies in the simple process of identifying where you currently are, dreaming/projecting where you want to be, and then figuring out how to get from here to there.
86
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
A Strategic Plan is a map. Where are we now? If you don’t know where you are, a map won’t help Where do we want to be? If you don’t know where you’re going, any map will do. How do we get there? Now a map is useful.
We haven’t found an organization yet that has declined to make a strategic plan. Everyone agrees it’s important and a worthwhile activity. But immature organizations never implement the plan, assuming they were able to develop a viable one to start with. There is a definite level of maturity required for an organization to understand strategic planning and to use the plan to its proper fulfillment. Talking with a teenager gives one a good example of what happens in an immature organization. You can ask a teen what he wants to do when he grows up, and in most cases, the teen will have no idea. If he offers a career choice, it will likely change in the next week. There is nothing bad about this, but it is a situation that must be acknowledged because it clearly displays where the teen is in overall maturity. If an organization is immature it will have difficulty identifying (beyond a superficial level) why it exists. If it can’t do that, it will be almost impossible for the leader to set an inspiring vision that fires up the organization. And if, as a charismatic leader/change agent, you push an immature organization to actually document a complete plan, there is no chance that it will actually be implemented. HOW TO WRITE A MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement is the foundation for all strategic plans. The mission defines why the organization exists, and should persist as a stable entity. (Think of your local police force’s mission: “To Serve and Protect.”) It’s not something to be designed or created; it simply needs to be discovered. The organization already exists (unless you are using this book to ensure you have a strong organization at creation); its reason for existing is already there. The problem is that it’s rarely stated or documented. And if it is, it’s often poorly crafted and seldom read. The mission statement should capture as simply and plainly as possible the reason the organization exists. It’s amazing how many organizations participate in activities that don’t support
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
87
the reason the organization exists and in some cases actually oppose its very purpose. This is not a conscious decision. Organizations don’t go out of their way to contradict their own purpose. The problem arises when the organization has failed to identify, document, and share its mission. The simplest example is the customer service organization that, due to a lack of focus on its mission, decides that customers create too much work for them. Rather than understand that to serve the customer is the purpose, the organization begins to see the customer as an annoyance. Ridiculous, you say? Chances are you’ll recall this point the next time you find yourself still waiting on the phone after spending 10 minutes pushing buttons and listening to choices, with no opportunity to make a request to a human, only to discover that none of the choices match your need for placing the call. Without a clear mission, the organization can easily lose track of its reason for being. A dining hall at a college decides to offer a menu without regard to what the students want or need, and when the students complain, the chef argues that they are unsophisticated eaters of fast food. A good mission statement gets to the core reason the organization exists. By clearly identifying the mission, you define where the organization currently is. Once you have it documented, we recommend you hang it in every office. There is much more you can do for documenting the “current state” of an organization. There are data points you can gather, and information to be analyzed. How many employees are there? What is the organizational structure? Who are the organization’s customers? What are the products and services the organization deals in? It’s interesting to note that most organizations have this type of information readily at hand—most times in the form of an annual report. When we review most companies’ annual reports, we find that the mission statement is present but poorly written to the point that the organization’s membership doesn’t know what it is. They can’t recite it or recognize it. It’s not considered part of their knowledge base, or important to the lowestlevel employee. This should not be the case. It is very unlikely that a worker will feel loyalty to an organization if he doesn’t know why the organization exists or why what he does matters.
88
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
While writing the mission statement, you’ll find that some of the other information about the organization will fall out naturally. This information is valuable. It can be used to sell the Champion on the power of the mission statement. By clearly identifying the mission, the organization can start to grow even during this early phase. Some of the things the organization does, the way it behaves, and the products and services it provides may be misaligned with the mission (like a software company several years ago that had more employees doing lawn work and cafeteria work than programmers building software). This begs the question, is the organization doing the right things? And if not, can the organization change or stop doing the wrong things? If they are the right things, did you misidentify why you exist? In either case, honest self-awareness is invaluable. Many managers relish the opportunity to stop doing something they felt was extraneous to their mission; they just didn’t have a good way of explaining it. By helping the manager develop a solid mission statement, it becomes a tool for communicating to the leadership why the organization should or shouldn’t be doing specific tasks. HOW TO WRITE AN INSPIRING VISION STATEMENT The vision is a forward view of what the organization will look like in years to come. This is the singular property and responsibility of the leader of the organization. If you are doing this within a subunit, it belongs to the leader of the subunit. If you’re doing this on a personal level, you are the leader. This ownership does not preclude the leader from obtaining input from anyone and everyone she chooses. The more information (not necessarily more words) that goes into the product, the better the chance you will create an inspiring vision. A vision is essential to the strategic plan, to the point that trying to create a long-range plan without an understanding of where the organization wants to go is almost criminal. The organization could wander about for years, driving in one direction and then another, backtracking over ground already covered and stopping before reaching any destination. It’s what happens when you decide to take a trip, and you have a map, but can’t decide where to go. Without a plan, you could waste an entire vacation driving aimlessly. Years ago, when we were young, it was a fun summer thing to do, a road trip! And we didn’t need to know the destination. We just packed up our car with clothes, food, and friends and then headed off. Unfortunately, it wasn’t as much
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
89
fun as originally fantasized—the most common result from this experience was that the hopeful adventurers simply ended up lost, hungry, and broke. One of the authors’ teenage daughters wanted to visit England for a week. It was agreed that she could go, but only if she planned out the trip so her parents could be assured she’d end up safe back home. She had six-months lead time to plan but at the end she could only say that she wanted to “see it all.” Scotland, England, and Wales were, after all, only an inch and a half apart on the atlas. The trip never happened because the vision was blurred, never clear. A few years ago we worked with a team to develop a strategic plan, but as the leadership was struggling with the vision, we skipped it. We figured we could come back and fill it in later. It seemed like a good idea at the time, as we pressed ahead to identify goals and objectives based on the mission. After a couple of months, we realized that all we’d actually identified were tactical plans to improve the way the organization was fulfilling its mission. We had not identified any goals that would bridge the gap between the current state and the planned future. They couldn’t identify any long-range, meaningful, life-changing goals because they didn’t know where the organization wanted to go. Vision is essential to a strategic plan and must be developed before going forward. We’ve seen this exercise take as little as a few hours. On one occasion it took several days. In either case, having a vision statement is critical. The vision is the first chance for the organization to “pay up front” before reaping the benefits of planning. The vision, like the mission, also needs to be clearly stated so everyone in the organization can understand it. The organization needs to not only be able to remember the vision, but it must be inspirational. The vision will drive the projects, efforts, and funding for the next 10 or more years as the organization strives to reach the overarching “super-goal.” On May 25, 1961, during a special congressional session President John F. Kennedy put forth a vision, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” It was an inspiring vision that was simply stated. This simple vision galvanized a nation, created new organizations, influenced school curriculums, and helped the United States win the space race. The country (more than simply the space program) wasn’t anywhere near the location President Kennedy wanted it to be, and without his vision, the changes to the country would not have occurred.
90
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
One caution—ensure that your vision and mission aren’t diametrically opposed. If they are, you may have to change one or the other, or build into the plan a feasible transition between the past and the future.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES/ACTION ITEMS From experience, we know that most of your Champions will have a strong desire to jump to this goal-setting part of the plan. They want to identify what they need to achieve. They want to “get their hands dirty” and the mission and vision seem to be mere rhetoric that doesn’t help them improve. So did you actually get a good mission and inspiring vision written? If not, you need to work harder at selling your Champions on these facets of the plan before moving to the part they enjoy. If you save it for later, they won’t want to “go backward” to capture the mission and vision later; and it wouldn’t make sense anyway, as the goals should be in support of them, not the other way around. If you have a solid mission and vision, it’s time for the organization to figure out how to get from here to there. Goals are an essential building block of the strategic plan. Working from the vision, you should be able to identify high-level, forward-looking goals that will make the vision a reality (if the vision is getting a man on the moon and back, then you’re going to need a ship that can fly a man through space, land on the moon, and then take off and fly back to earth). As you then work backward to what you need to do in the shorter term, ensure that all goals are achievable and measurable. From a strategic point of view, each goal must help the organization realize the vision. The ultimate achievement of the vision could take decades (we’ve even heard of some Japanese organizations having hundred-year plans). The goals then let you break down all the “how’s” because goals are steps that get you from the bottom to the top of a ladder, from the beginning to the end of a trail. Like the mission and vision, goals have simple and logical principles. Achievable A goal must first be achievable. Don’t allow naysayers to derail your efforts by arguing that every goal is unachievable. The common
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
91
refrains are lack of funding, manpower, or time. These are not factors that make a goal unachievable. We usually ask the organization, “If you had the resources necessary, would you be able to achieve the goal?” If the answer is yes, the goal is achievable; it might be costly, but it’s definitely achievable. Another way to look at the principle is to ask whether the goal is physically or intellectually possible. If the answer is yes, it’s most likely achievable. E = mc2 is elegant, but for humans who today barely understand the speed of light, the speed of light squared doesn’t sound achievable in the near future. Measurable A goal must also be measurable. In other words, the organization has to be able to identify when the goal is truly achieved. For both of these criteria to work, the goal must be clearly written. It should have a verb (what will be done/achieved), a subject (who will do it— usually implied), and a measure of success. Part of the measurability of the goal is a clear definition of when it should be achieved (volunteers get 50,000 signatures by noon Friday). This time-bound attribute allows the organization to know whether they succeeded in reaching the goal in the time needed and also allows for breaking the goal into smaller steps (milestones). Comprehensive and Aligned It’s equally important (but harder to master) to make goals comprehensive and aligned. By comprehensive, we mean that if the goals were achieved, there would be a high level of confidence that the vision would also be achieved. If it is believed that more work would be necessary, the goals, while possibly aligned, are not comprehensive. You have to identify what is missing. The alignment factor involves ensuring that the goal aligns with the vision. Many times we have great ideas that we’d like to implement. Unfortunately, sometimes these initiatives do nothing to help achieve the vision. An organization has to scope its efforts and not take on more than it should. Even if people have passion around an improvement, if the effort doesn’t align with the mission or vision, it’s something someone else should be doing. We have found it useful to analyze some poorly written goals before giving examples of well-written ones. Experience shows us it’s unlikely that you will write good goals from the outset, so understanding how
92
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
to dissect and improve them is more useful than trying to create perfection the first time. Some examples of poorly written goals: • Improve customer satisfaction. • Increase sales. • Develop training plans. These goals are poorly written because they don’t meet the criteria listed above and therefore make achievement either impossible or too easy. “Improve customer satisfaction” has a poorly chosen verb. To “improve” can be to move in a given direction just enough that it can be measured. If you have 1,000 customers and 900 ranked you as a 7 (out of 10), if you get one of these customers to change his ranking to an 8, you will have improved. Although this is valid, it’s surely not what the organization was truly trying to achieve. Yes, the organization wants to improve, but to do so, it needs to give more meaningful direction to the workforce. “Improve” is a vague verb, as is “increase.” How much of an increase is the goal seeking? Based on the second goal’s wording, one more sale or the same number of sales, with one of them being for one dollar more, is success. The third example has a clearer verb, to “develop.” The problem with the goal isn’t the verb; it’s the underlying purpose and therefore comprehensiveness. It is assumed that developing training plans will help the organization in an area it wants to improve, but they may not. The true goal is hidden behind this action item (or task). Let’s rewrite these goals (realizing they are only examples). As a change agent, you should help the organization better define its goals, not actually sit down and rewrite them yourself. If the goal should deal with improving or increasing, there must be a measurable amount of improvement or increase. “Improve customer satisfaction ratings by 50 percent each year over the next five years.” Or “Increase sales by 75 percent in the next 36 months.” These are both more measurable and clearer. The problem now lies in the same briar patch as “develop training plans.” Are these goals fully defined? Are they comprehensive and aligned? Are the measures of success clear? Do they support the vision? A customer-satisfaction rating may not translate into the true goal of increased sales, or increased sales may not be a true indicator of the underlying goal of establishing the company as a leader in the
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
93
industry. The increased sales could be a result of practices (like under pricing) that will eventually cripple the organization. Higher customer-satisfaction ratings may be a result of giving away free items with every customer call. The point is that the true goal is not evident. The risk is that the workforce will do whatever is necessary to meet the stated goal and achieve the measurement of success and potentially hurt the organization in doing so. As a change agent, you will need to dig deeper until you can get the organization to identify comprehensive goals that are in line with the vision, achievable, and measurable. As with the “develop training plans” goal, these goals are now not significant enough. The true goal behind the need for training plans may be to have a fully qualified workforce. The training plans are only one small component of the true goal. The key is to ensure the goal is big enough that it will be worth celebrating on its own, and that the results are worthy of the investment (time, effort, manpower, etc.). Writing goals does not require a large vocabulary, a higher education degree, or a deep understanding of human genomes. All that is required is a clear vision to start, followed by identifying big steps to help achieve the vision. Once the goals (big steps) are documented, they must be tracked, modified, deleted, added to, and, of course, achieved. Don’t worry about putting the time criteria in the goal yet. Wait until you’ve broken the goal down into objectives and action items, then estimate the time it will take to complete. Many immature organizations identify vague and poorly written goals and then stick a “get well” date on them without any reason for the date (e.g., “let’s complete this goal in one month so the staff knows we’re serious!”). After you’ve broken the goal into objectives and action items, work your way back up to include the time component. Objectives Objectives are a useful tool in the strategic-planning process. They are also the manager’s favorite part of the process. Objectives are subunits of a goal. Objectives can also be referred to as immediate, tactical, or day-to-day goals. It’s this operational flavor that managers like. We usually find that most organizations have no problem thinking short-term and can identify objectives (and action items) with ease. In fact, the three examples (after their rewrites) above were examples of objectives. When we work with an organization,
94
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
we usually brainstorm a list of “goals” after writing the mission and vision. When we revisit these goals to clarify and edit them using the principles of achievability, measurability, comprehensiveness, and alignment, the “goals” frequently become objectives or action items. “Developing a training plan” would become an objective under “develop a fully qualified workforce.” An objective must directly support its parent goal. Remember, chances are your Champion will want to jump directly to objectives, and he’ll call them goals. If you’ve sold him on the mission and vision, this sale will be much easier. Rather than sell him on goals over objectives, let him brainstorm freely. Identify all of the objectives he wants to achieve, and then look for the “missing goal” that connects his objectives with the vision. Action Items Action items are tasks. They are the items that must be done to achieve the objectives/goals with which they align. Tasks have start and end dates. They are tracked. They are prioritized consistently with their parent objectives. Action items should be aligned, but do not have to be comprehensive. It should take multiple action items to satisfy an objective, and multiple objectives to satisfy a goal. With the action item comes a useful concept: action officers. An action officer can be anyone who is given (or takes) responsibility and authority to get the task done. A clear understanding of how the action item fits into the objective, and the objective into the goal, and the goal into the vision is paramount. Everyone in the chain must be sold on the importance of each action item. The action officer is a single point of contact, who will be responsible for the completion of the task. If you’ve waited to put estimated completion dates on your goals and objectives, that’s excellent. Schedules should be built from the bottom up. The plan’s goals, objectives, and action items should be built from the top (vision) down, but the time requirements should be worked from the bottom up. The estimates for completing the action items will drive the estimates for completing the objectives, which, in turn, will drive the goal accomplishment timeline. You have to take into account the timeline for completing the objectives and action items. Your estimated completion date should be as close to reality as possible. If a date is determined for goal completion
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
95
without regard to the time it will take to achieve the substeps, the date will be an unfounded wish—and later, a disappointment or point of “blame.” Sadly, some leaders take pleasure in announcing a “quick” goal-achievement date before estimates are presented, knowing the staff will have to work like dogs to complete the goal. What makes this sad is that some leaders believe this is the perfect formula for motivation. Metrics within the Strategic Plan
Objective 1 Action Item 2 Goal 1 Action Item 3 Objective n Action Item n
% on time
% complete
% on time
% complete
% complete
Action Item 1
% on time
% complete
There is a lengthy explanation in the chapter on metrics. This section deals only with metrics specific to the strategic plan. For each goal in a strategic plan, you should develop a metric that is designed to measure and manage the achievement of the goal. As with all metrics, they are tools used to make decisions. In this case, the metric should give management insight into how well the achievement of the goal is progressing. It should be as full a story as possible, ensuring that there are no false reads by leadership. This metric must be directly tied to the measurability of the goal. If the Champion tracks the progress of the action items and objectives (if comprehensive), she will have a good feel for the overall progress of the goal. The simplest version of this metric would be tracking actual against estimated times to completion. Deeper metrics that describe the benefits of the goal, or whether the goal actually produced the benefits expected, can be added as the organization grows. The simplest goal attainment metric should look something like the following:
96
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
The “n” represents the last action item or objective. There’s no set number of action items for achieving an objective, nor a set number of objectives to achieve a goal. Sometimes action items can help achieve more than one objective. Essentially, the metrics attached to the strategic plan are designed to provide visibility to the progress of the plan. A Living Plan This is where the organization’s immaturity may again come into play. If the organization has gotten this far (documented a wellwritten plan), the proof of maturity will be in how the plan is used. If it’s used to prop up the short leg of your conference table, your coffee may not spill, but the plan will not help the organization. The strategic plan must be a living document. It is more important for it to be used than for it to be pretty. Too often organizations put unplanned resources and effort into making their plan look professional (4-color glossy) rather than usable. The strategic plan, as a living document, will evolve over time and should produce other documents, such as Success Stories and Lessons Learned. Sometimes these two offshoots are captured in the annual report. The point is, if the strategic plan is to provide the greatest possible return on investment, it must be referred to, written in, and used often. We’ve provided a simple approach to writing a strategic plan in Appendix 5. USING THE PLAN Unfortunately, your work is not done. You will have to overcome some barriers to using the plan. If you are lucky enough to have a strong Champion, and you’ve sold her on the benefits of the plan as a whole (and not just identifying the action items or objectives), congratulations! For the rest of us, we’ll need to keep selling the strategic plan long after it is drafted. Why? Fear. Resistance to change. Inability to “start” (no one wants to go first). All of these can affect the organization’s ability to use a strategic plan. It is essential that during every step of the creation of the plan, the change agent works to mitigate the immaturity of the organization.
PUTTING STRATEGY INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING
97
Don’t make the strategic plan so pretty that you don’t want to change it. Don’t make the plan a dust catcher in the office. Don’t create a plan that is impossible to achieve. Don’t neglect metrics in the plan. If you don’t “believe,” you won’t sell anyone else on the value of the plan.
We hope that you’ve chosen your Champions wisely and this will be less of an issue. But even a Champion of planning may have reservations about implementing and using the entire plan. All she may really want to do is work the operational tasks. Remember, if all you do is build a plan for achieving day-to-day tasks, you will not be able to leverage this effort for a broader spectrum of the organization. You will not have actually created a pocket of maturity. It is your job to sell the Champion on the whole product, not just part of it. The key to selling the product to her is for you to personally believe in it, and to identify and stress the WIIFMs for her. How will the mission help her? How will the vision make her unit better? Where will the goals get her? Sell her on the benefits and you will have a true Champion and a replicable example for the rest of the organization.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 10
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: OPEN CHANNELS AT ALL LEVELS
You know you’re in an immature organization when the official word from leadership lags a week or more behind the accurate rumor mill.
One of the common elements of successful, mature organizations is clear, open, and honest communications. The often heard lament throughout an immature organization is “we don’t know what’s going on!” In an immature organization, the privileged few have (or think they have) the information necessary to make decisions, rumors are the norm, and gossip runs rampant. When communications are not open, the environment becomes a depressing place to work. Part of this is because, as humans, we tend to imagine the worst. Try the simple experiment of mentioning to a co-worker on your way out the door that you have something to talk to them about, but you’ll get with them tomorrow. Then don’t. After a couple of days, see if they come by asking what you wanted to talk about (some won’t last the night—they’ll track down your home number and call). It will have been eating at them for the whole time, based on how much ‘power’ they perceive you to have, what kinds of secrets you might have learned, etc. If you were to ask them “What do you think it might be about,”—you’d be amazed at the horrible imaginings they entertained.
100
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
To overcome Organizational Immaturity, one of the key steps is to create an environment in which clear, honest communications flow freely in all directions. And that pertains to all types of information communicated, not just business decisions. People in most organizations participate in structured meetings from time to time. But every hallway conversation, every “message poster” on the walls, every email, instant message, and interoffice memo is part of a vast and complex web of communication within organizations. So what information does the worker need? If your organization works under a system of providing information on an “as needed basis,” you can bet that information is hoarded and doled out as a form of power brokerage. Employees “need” information that is pertinent to the employee or the organization as a whole. As part of the organization, the employee needs all of the information that is available on the organization’s present and future health (and to varying degrees, past performance). When are children in the family old enough to know what’s going on? When do they get to know the family’s financial situation? Or, more simply, what’s the plan for dinner? Usually when they are mature enough, the parents decide to share more information. In some families, information is not even shared between the parents. Poor communication creates dysfunctional organizations as readily as dysfunctional families. Communication is about information, but it’s also about how information is moved around, how it is “accessed” when it isn’t readily visible, and how it is shared. An employee is not a tool to be used by management; an employee is part of the team. Management’s job is not to filter information for the worker (“Don’t bother them with that information, it’s not part of their area.”). Granted, the totally open flow of information is a very mature concept, or perhaps an ideal. This may not be achieved until an organization is highly developed, but it’s a great goal to strive for. UPHILL It is essential for any organization to enable information that originates at the staff level to work its way up through the organization freely. When workers identify areas needing improvement or creating risk, this information must be communicated uphill (upstream) as soon as possible. Even if the observation is faulty, the worker must feel comfortable with sharing his perception with his supervisors. There is, of course, a level of trust that must exist to promote this communication, and if trust is absent, communication will be spotty
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: OPEN CHANNELS AT ALL LEVELS
101
and weak. It’s not enough for the supervisor to admonish her workers that it is their responsibility to communicate up. If the workers believe that sharing their perceptions will result in ridicule, negative ramifications, or indifference, they won’t share. Workers have to trust that the supervisor will take their recommendations and perceptions seriously, investigate further, and share the results. “Closing the loop” with the worker is essential to promote communications. This is at times painfully evident when communicating with toddlers. They tell you something, like “I want pretzels with my cheese stick” and then they await your confirmation that you heard and understood. A head nod, or an “OK” is not good enough for the toddler; you must repeat what they said and then open the cabinet and take out the pretzels. Later, the child becomes accustomed to trusting your nod. Likewise, early on, workers only feel comfortable if you repeat correctly what they said. If a worker doesn’t trust management, a nod won’t do. When information is sent up, “closing the loop” is the responsibility of management. Trusting management to use information properly is the essence of good leadership, not followership. It’s not the worker’s responsibility to trust in a vacuum; it is the responsibility of management to build that trust with the worker. DOWNHILL Management must share information. This communication must include all information that the worker needs, not merely the results of an uphill communication. This “need to know” is a very tricky concept, one that is usually abused. Because knowledge truly is power, we find that most people don’t want to share it. In fact, they want to hoard it. The more information someone has, the more powerful they feel. The more information they disseminate, the less powerful they feel. Abusing “need to know” is one of the great copouts of all time. “I didn’t share that because they didn’t need to know.” Need is a word that requires definition. If management tried to define it in terms of what is necessary for survival, they’d have a very narrow view of what would qualify. If they expanded “need” to be any information that would improve (or hurt) the effectiveness or efficiency of the work force, they’d run the risk of deciding what is pertinent to the processes and procedures that the worker uses (processes and procedures in which management frequently has no expertise). Management would also run the risk of keeping information from workers, information which would directly impact their
102
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
professional development or employee satisfaction. Trying to set rules for what qualifies as “needed” information is a very dangerous quicksand, in which the more we struggle, the more deeply mired we become. It’s amazing and ironically humorous how much information is protected (or simply unshared) by organizations, information that others with maturity treat almost as public knowledge, but is hoarded by an immature organization. One example: an organization housed across numerous buildings had a facilities management office. That office needed a system for saving all building and room information so they could decide where to place people, reconfigure group workspaces, and so forth. Leadership authorized the purchase of a facilities management computer application to be shared between one department maintaining all the buildings and another department planning for renovations or movement of people and programs. However, leadership had no idea that dozens of junior-level staff needed to occasionally work with room layouts and other floor plans. Because the availability of the facilities application was communicated only to the “intended group,” a dozen individuals in various departments across the organization ordered $500 CAD programs (which also required many hours of training) so they could store and work with “their own” building drawings. Another example, this one just as unintentional a kind of hoarding of information as the first is the following. An organization with a few hundred employees held quarterly staff meetings, and a portion of each meeting was used by leadership to update everyone on recent performance, key projects currently underway, critical projects coming up in the near future, and “happy” news about commitments from new customers. Following a very bad economic year, the first quarter meeting wasn’t scheduled; instead it was pushed off until the next quarter. But on the new date, the meeting was cancelled—no explanation of why, no reschedule date given. Three types of rumors ran rampant: “layoffs are coming,” “the boss is going to be fired,” and the always-nagging, “see, more proof the boss doesn’t give a darn about us.” ACROSS This should be the easiest communication flow, peer to peer, suborganization to suborganization. The lack of this type of communi-
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: OPEN CHANNELS AT ALL LEVELS
103
cation is a strong indicator of immaturity. While the uphill and downhill communications will suffer in an immature organization, peer-to-peer communications may be almost nonexistent or riddled with misinformation. This develops a culture that is splintered by unhealthy competition for survival. The “us versus them” mentality that is common in immature organizations between staff and management can also exist at the peer-to-peer level. Unfortunately, management often mistakenly promotes this immaturity. Managers sometimes portray suborganizations they should be teaming with as a common enemy or competitors—a horrible, but effective, way of rallying their own workers (at least until things backfire). They think that by pitting their employees against another department, the friendly competition will build cohesion. Although a level of temporary internal teaming will occur for the sake of completing a specific project, such tactics destroy any chance the greater organization has of maturing. In organizations where there is no apparent competition, like a research organization looking for a cure to a disease, the “common enemy” is the disease. In an immature organization, everyone outside of an immediate circle (whatever that circle may be) is the enemy, and managers try not to be viewed as one of “them.” So some managers try to buddy up with the team, while inadvertently promoting animosity (or certainly low respect) toward other units and managers. There is no attempt to build healthy, proactive crossunit teams. There is an unwillingness to see the big picture, to see the organization as a whole. So long as an organization is only viewed as disparate parts, this attitude will prevail even after the organization fails and dies. In any postmortem discussions, the units will still blame their peer units for the organization’s failure, forever ignoring the part they played in the downfall. Peer-to-peer communication at the subunit level may be the most difficult form of communication to promote because it is not “necessary” most times. Uphill and downhill communications are easier to justify—uphill to request a decision, and downhill to transmit the decision. But open communication between subunits seems to lack urgency or necessity or a clear benefit. Of course, there are plenty of instances of required subunit communications, like when a project or product is being handed off to another group, but openness is limited. A good maturity test is to observe how organization-wide communications occur. Is there a town hall type of meeting for the entire organization? At such a meeting, in what direction does the information flow?
104
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Normally, at a minimum, it will flow downhill. Some meetings aren’t even meetings; sometimes they’re just broadcasts to all members of the organization. Is there any uphill communication? Are there peer-to-peer communications? Who determines what is shared? A strong indicator of the maturity of an organization is the freedom of communication. Not freedom of speech, but freedom of information flow. Is information shared freely up, down, and across the organization, or is information hoarded and protected like a private asset? The organization as a whole should have access to the information that is important to the organization. The goal must be to create an atmosphere of openness and candor. Communicate more, not less. Information must be shared freely and openly in all directions. If the goal is to become powerful on an individual basis, then by all means, hoard data. If the goal is to create a mature, successful organization, share information every chance you can; those who immediately need the information will internalize it, and those who don’t immediately need it will at least remember that such information exists. In all cases of written communication—e-mails, memos, posters, calendar appointments—pause a moment and consider how people might react to the words you use. If someone handed you the same message, would you feel like you got “enough of the story,” or so little of the story that important questions immediately jump to mind? As we’ll see later, a process asset library also has a distinct part to play in the overall communication process by enabling different kinds of information handling and sharing.
CHAPTER 11
USING A POLICY FRAMEWORK: ESTABLISHING A MODEL
You know you’re in an immature organization when leadership reacts to a complacent and unenthusiastic workforce with another policy to “straighten them out.”
It used to be that we’d throw money at an organizational problem. Now, even the richest companies are more conscious of costs. Today, one of the favorite (but faulty) silver bullets seems to be creating a new policy. When in doubt, create a policy. Policies are great for mandating and dictating. Policies help to define high-level expectations and rules. But policies are horrible at solving problems. They can’t be used to fix things, like decreasing work zone accidents on a highway or slowing down speeders in a school zone. We can create a policy that radically increases fines for disobeying the driving speed in work or school zones. We can hand the policy to the police to enforce whenever they are in the area and happen to see a violation. Unfortunately, unless we plan for rigorously (or at least frequently) enforcing the policy, chances are some drivers will still speed. The goal within an organization is to effect positive change, to create improvements in the ways we do business. This requires a lot more than a policy. We call the needed components collectively a policy framework because the policy is at the top rung of the framework. The framework provides an architecture for discussing all of
106
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
the components necessary to make governance change a reality. Policies give authority and guidance, but that leaves (too) much to the imagination. If you were wondering where process definitions start to come into play, you’ve finally found it. Policy Framework Components Policy—the over-arching rules that pertain to governance. Standards—describe the minimum requirements for meeting policy, and often restrict the methods for fulfilling those requirements. Processes and procedures—describe the repeatable steps necessary to complete any functions related to supporting the standard. Repeatability is key at this level—whenever processes are individualized, leadership lacks insight into how the organization operates and why so many of its deliverables require re-work. Tools—include any guidelines, checklists, templates or job aids that enable similarly-skilled staff to correctly follow processes. Metrics and assessment—enable both monitoring quality of service and auditing for adherence.
The policy framework is flexible enough to be used at any level of an organization. This framework is shared nationally and internationally across governmental, educational, and industrial institutions. POLICY A policy mandates specific behaviors and/or actions that must be adhered to. We expect negative consequences if we fail to comply with a policy, be it federal, state, city, or organizational. Most times, the level of policy dictates the level of influence. Federal laws have a broader range of influence and often carry a much stiffer penalty than violating a state law. The same applies within an organization. Regardless of the policy level, there are some components that should be included.
USING A POLICY FRAMEWORK: ESTABLISHING A MODEL
107
Policy statement—a clear delineation of what must or must not be done. If it’s not clear, it won’t be followed, and unless the goal is to trick people into failing compliance, the statement must be clear. A policy statement should include guidance for when it ought to be consulted in order to avoid missteps when it must be followed. It should be worded in plain English and easy to understand. It should be directive in nature and as short as possible. Audit—every policy should include guidance on how compliance will be measured. If there is no evaluation of compliance, the policy is more a wish than a guiding rule. It helps to identify who will audit, along with the how. Will there be periodic observation or will documents be reviewed? Is there an approval process? Enforcement—it should be clear what the consequences of noncompliance are. When we really want to provide guidance, we make the consequences clear—in the case of speeding in a work zone, the fine for violators is the largest information on the sign. It’s also important to know who is responsible for the enforcement of the rule. Along with who performs the “audit” you need to identify who is responsible for doling out the punishment for non-compliance. Consequence—the consequence should be clearly stated to remove ambiguity on the part of the enforcer. What is the fine? What is the consequence for non-compliance to the policy? While determining whether a policy has been violated may require a case-by-case evaluation, the consequence cannot be case-by-case if the policy is to hold any power. The following is an example IT policy: All standards for the utilization of computers on the company network are set by the IT Department. The network is continuously monitored to assure compliance. Anyone attempting to use devices on the network that fail to meet standards, without first receiving a variance signed by the CIO, will be subject to termination.
STANDARD A standard describes the minimum requirements for meeting a given policy. Standards are of a more narrow focus than policy, and may include specifications such as measure, scope, quantity, quality, and value. They represent the organization’s choices on how to satisfy a given policy at a high level. Standards constrain variance, limit
108
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
choices, and promote reduced complexity. They provide a deeper explanation of how to adhere to the policy, and therefore are indivisible from the policy. Warning: never have standards that do not support a policy; people will treat them as mere recommendations. Ensure all standards expound on an identified policy. The following is an example IT standard: All desktop computers on the company network will use either Mac OS X or Windows System 7 operating systems.
PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES Processes are identifiable and repeatable steps for completing a function. This is a high-level view that allows the process owner to communicate, innovate, and improve the major steps involved. This is a critical component within the policy framework as it has the greatest potential for return on investment. This is why whole change efforts often center on process improvement. Processes tell us how we do things. When we look at the tasks in our training plans or in our strategic plan, the process tells us how to carry out those tasks. A more in-depth look at process management is included later in the book because of its importance, depth, and breadth; it’s truly a weighty subject. Within the policy framework we are concerned primarily with process identification and high level definition. A process provides a transition to more specific procedures. The following is an example IT process: To obtain a variance for operating a non-standard network device: Submit a business case for the device, along with technical specifications of the device, to your supervisor. The CIO will review the request and either issue a variance or explain the reason for denying the request. If you receive a CIO variance through your supervisor, contact the Information Security Officer to schedule a time to connect your device to the network.
Procedures are the step-by-step tasks needed to complete a process step. For example, there is a process for putting servers behind a data center firewall. However, some of the procedures dif-
USING A POLICY FRAMEWORK: ESTABLISHING A MODEL
109
fer from one computer to another based on the applications running on the server. Procedures also serve as lower-level standards within a process. These are normally referred to as standard operating procedures (SOP) and dictate the minimum requirements for completing a process step. Procedures can also be turned into job aids—laminated cards that provide step-by-step instructions for carrying out a task. Many times when we’ve worked with customers to develop process definitions, we find that we’ve actually captured process steps. This is evident in the scope of the “process”; when it involves only one person, with little deviation in method, it probably is a procedure. TOOLS Tools assist in the performance of a process or procedure. Tools include guidelines, job aids, handbooks, templates, checklists, and manuals. Tools can also describe a set of standard operating procedures or provide an easily accessible listing of policies and standards. Many times tools are low-hanging fruit—relatively easy to create, but don’t normally provide as deep a level of return as processes and procedures. The upside is that they normally provide a quick and visible return on investment. All emergency procedures would benefit from a tool that displays them readily and clearly. Take a look at your fire extinguisher or fire evacuation route map (hopefully both are hanging on a wall somewhere). Look at the instructions; again, hopefully clearly posted and easy to understand. Emergency procedures, by their title, imply that you won’t have time to refer to a source, look up information, or ask someone what they think. They’re for use in an emergency. So you’ll need all the pertinent information immediately, and they have to be clearly understandable. Other tools within the policy framework can be as useful. They normally are spawned from the effort to document the other components (especially process and procedures). ASSESSMENT An assessment is the method for evaluating the success, effectiveness, efficiency, and/or quality of the policy framework components. This can be interpreted in two ways. One way: • How well do the actual components meet the needs?
110
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
• Do the policies and standards create the anticipated level of standardization and control? • Do the documented processes and procedures assist in the understanding, communication, and improvement of the way business is conducted? • Do the tools help in conducting the processes and procedures? • Do they assist the user in understanding and complying with the policies and standards? The second way: how well the organization meets a given focus area of the policy framework. This is done by assessing the level of compliance: • How well do we meet the intent of the policy/standards? • How efficient and effective are the processes and procedures? • How well do we follow them? Are we using the documentation to help improve the processes and procedures? • How effective are the tools? Are they increasing our efficiency? Keeping the policy framework in mind can be very useful throughout the maturation process. We’ve found that there is generally some confusion about where an item fits—is it a policy, standard, process, or tool? Just as in strategic planning, where users become confused between mission, vision, goals, and action items, this confusion can actually prove beneficial. The confusion can be used as a launching point for dialogue on what the components are and how they can, or should, be used. Although the framework is called policy framework, the key component, the root, is actually the definition of processes. And as previously mentioned, depending on the organizational level you are working with, there may be no policies or standards in place or actually needed. As with strategic planning, if you are working on the policy framework, ensure you document all of the hard work; chances are the items you develop will be used, even if not in the expected area. For example, if you are drafting a policy, chances are you’ll capture many “standards” as a byproduct of discussing what belongs in the policy. And while you’re working on standards, you’ll identify many things that are actually processes. We tested a brainstorm session around policy and standards (they work well together) and found that we had identified over 50 percent of the processes, procedures, and tools for the focus area while trying to identify the policies and
USING A POLICY FRAMEWORK: ESTABLISHING A MODEL
111
standards. Because we kept everything, when we clarified the brainstormed items, rather than delete the nonpolicies and standards, we properly labeled them and used them when we reached the process, procedure, tool, and assessment phases. The most common mistake we’ve noticed is the attempt to create one part of the framework while totally ignoring the other components. Even if you are only documenting a process, it’s worthwhile to check if there are any other components necessary or useful before proclaiming completion. The great part of documenting your efforts is the very real likelihood that nothing is ever wasted. Even the things that don’t fit are easily used in a different endeavor. This was true with developing a strategic plan, training plans, and now with the policy framework. We’ll find this to be true with project management also.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 12
PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY: SETTING THE BAR
You know you’re in an immature organization when you feel lucky to have gotten half way through a project before a new, higher priority initiative knocks the one you’re working on off the queue.
A project is a series of tasks that yield a desired outcome or deliverable, preferably on time and within budget. By this definition, any of the goals or objectives identified in the strategic plan can be addressed with a project. In our home lives, we can have a project to repaint the porch. It involves specific tasks with a timeline for completion. It also has a list of resources needed, with a budget for each. Your spouse may even take on the job of being a project manager, doling out the funding for the project, giving opinions on the plan, critiquing progress, and letting you know how good of a job you did. If the project goes over budget or is running behind schedule, your spouse will let you know. An organization’s management of projects isn’t much different, and even though you may not want to document the whats, whens, whys, and hows you followed to paint the porch, when your spouse tells you that since you did such a good job she’ll let you paint the garage, you’ll wished you had written stuff down, like how you determined how much paint you’d need, how you matched colors, how much materials cost, and so forth. It would make the next similar project that much easier. You may also want to have consistency around how you interacted with that project manager you live with!
114
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
1. Identify what qualifies as a project, and insist a methodology be used for managing it. 2. Develop tools for capturing the essentials of the effort: a. success indicators—how well are we doing it? b. customer—who are we doing it for? c. owner—who is ultimately responsible for the completion? d. milestones—what are the major deliverables and tasks? i. scope—what specifically is to be accomplished, and what is out of scope. What won’t be done. ii. timeline—when is each deliverable expected? e. resources—what is required to get the job done? A properly managed project has a beginning (date), an end (date), and a prescribed set of resources. You can collect much more information about a project—measures of success (how you will know the project was successfully competed), barriers (anything that could realistically slow or stall the project), and a list of other related projects or ties to overall strategy. Along with capturing the basic information, you may want to develop a charter for the project if it’s a complex or highly visible initiative. This is especially useful for documenting the resources needed when they come from different units in an organization (or even across multiple organizations). The charter can be used as a “contract” between units to allocate resources for completing the project. In a perfect (or at least mature) world, the charter serves more as a repository and archive instead of a document for holding units and management accountable for what they agreed to do. But, if you were in a mature organization, chances are you wouldn’t be reading this book. The charter is simply a formal project plan. If we’re going to repaint the porch, using an off-white, high-gloss paint ($50), on a given budget in a predetermined time frame (this weekend, or else!), then our project is simple enough that we can forgo the documentation of a plan. But, if the project was to turn the porch into a sun room with solar heating, we’d probably want to write a few things down. A charter can be as complicated or as simple as you like. As Einstein said, “Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.” You can spend an inordinate amount of time on any of the documents we’ve prescribed in this book. You can spend time, money, and sweat equity to make them as pretty as possible, but the goal is not to make a new coffee table decoration. The goal is to improve. The goal of the charter is to give clear guidance, guidance that will be referred to on a regular basis. If it’s not a living document, it’s a dead document.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY: SETTING THE BAR
115
If it’s dead, get rid of it; no one likes to see dead things lying around. They just take up space and end up smelling bad. Any plan should capture all of the essential questions for any goal achievement: what, why, who, when, where, and the big one, how. We put the list in a more logical order. Why—you have to know why you’re doing the project before you know what it is. There should be a purpose, a reason for the effort. Before you bother with any of the other information, you should know what the intended outcome is, the underlying “why” behind it all. This will not only help dictate the tasks necessary, but it will help identify the measures of success. What the project is—in detail. Is it repainting the porch or constructing a hundred townhouses? Check the why; you’ll know what is necessary to write if you know why you are doing the project. It’s nice to have details here. If you miss the finer points, hopefully you’re also going to capture the measures of success. They can help you finish clearly defining the requirements. Will your wife be happy if you only use one coat of paint? Is the job done when the paint is dry or when all of the materials are cleaned up, removed, washed, and put away for a future project? Who is responsible—if you don’t have someone responsible, it won’t get done. When we say “someone,” we mean some one, not two or three or a committee. A great lesson learned through military experience is that if you have more than one person responsible (or in charge), no one is responsible. As a manager, you have to let the person you put in charge be in charge. Don’t micromanage. Get out of the way. How will dictate the when and where. Sometimes we make the mistake of trying to let the when or where dictate the how. This creates a narrow view of the solution set for the project. Sometimes, you don’t have a choice—the when or where are immovable (such as: “We need more space, so move two people into this office by Friday.”). If the when or where are dictating the how, just realize you are restricting the creativity and solution set. The when and where could therefore be subsets of the how— qualifiers, rather than independent components. When—not only the time it is due, but the schedule for working the project. When will you start? How long will you work each day? What days will you not work? When will it be done? Is there a benefit to finishing early? Are there consequences to finishing late? Where—is there a requirement for the project to be worked in a designated location? Is there freedom in where the work is done? Do
116
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
we have to bring different people together in a common locale, or can we work from our own offices? Remember, your mission as a change agent for your organization (we assume you are taking on that role if you’re reading this) is to create replicable tools and formats so they can be leveraged with other pockets of maturity. You can develop a standard questionnaire for those thinking of taking on a project and a charter or project plan template. These documents should be tailored to your organization. If you make the forms simple enough, they can be used regardless of the level of project complexity. If the project is very simple, the unit may only fill out the questionnaire. If it’s somewhat complex, those involved would capture more detailed information in a one-page project plan. If the project is highly complex, a charter would be best. The documentation of the project then allows oversight by both management and team members, but most importantly, it allows other pockets of maturity to leverage the effort. Of course, managing a project entails much more than just documenting and planning the effort. Project management requires that the project be controlled in an operational and strategic sense. Dayto-day activities required to achieve the goal of the project must be worked on and tracked. Barriers must be removed or overcome. Resources must be allocated. Measures of success must be taken, and the return on investment or return on value captured. How the project will change the organization must be understood and communicated (a bold project such as creating a line of new services could shift an organization from being primarily manufacture-oriented to being primarily service-oriented). There are many proven project-management methodologies to choose from. There are numerous courses on project management available. Your mission is to treat initiatives with rigor and oversight, to use any of the project-management methodologies available; one of the most rigorous is available from the Project Management Institute (PMI). As always, the process we recommend is to find a Champion, then help him develop and use substantive tools that can be leveraged across the organization, one Champion at a time. It is worth noting, applications such as Microsoft Project are applications for tracking and forecasting resources, but not designed for truly managing a project. Human intervention is still critical. As an organization matures, its ability to manage projects may also mature. Controlling changes to goals or to the way you conduct
PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY: SETTING THE BAR
117
a project are strong signs of maturity. If the organization can stay on track, manage efforts to successful completion, and not lose interest, it’s showing a healthy level of maturity. Change can take any form— requested or required changes to the scope of the project, to the timeline, or to the budget. Or there could be changes in the sequence of tasks, the people working the tasks, even changes in stakeholder or sponsor desire for the project outcome or deliverable. Some experienced project managers consider any project to really have only three phases: generation of an idea, development of the plan, and then continual change management until the project is declared complete. Another view of how this works is represented in the figure below. This is not a new concept; it’s actually how we “think.” Unfortunately, the way we think naturally is not how we behave when working on a “project” (because of its complexity) or dealing with a crisis (because of the high stress levels). David Allen (in the book Getting Things Done) makes a great statement about how we reverse the natural planning model when presented with a problem at work. Instead of following the natural way our brains normally work, we jump to execution and only later decide we need to plan, and much later figure out that we need to figure out why we’re doing something in the first place.1
Idea/Goal Identified
Planning
Execution
Evaluation of progress
Closure
Many times, going back to a previous phase is seen as failure (either seen as a failure by management, or feared by staff that management will assign blame). If the intent is to successfully complete a project, it will become more important to get it right than to get it done on time. It’s completely acceptable to go backward through this model if it means that the benefits expected will be ensured. Often in immature organizations, projects are driven to completion without documentation or management. Many of these projects never realize their expected benefits because the organization is focused on completion (action), and not on meeting the criteria for success (the goal). Immature organizations live on the lower left side of the task-driven/processoriented hill (see A Strategic Maturity Model on page 119).
118
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Project closure shouldn’t occur until the evaluation of the project’s process indicates that the measures of success have actually been achieved. If this one criterion is adhered to, the project should never have to go back to an earlier phase once it achieves closure. This should not be confused with new projects that are designed to modify or add to an already completed project. A mature organization is always willing to revisit decisions, goals, and projects that have been completed—not for the purpose of re-work to overcome “issues,” but for the purpose of going beyond the original intent of the project. Closure provides psychological benefit to everyone involved, which is why even small projects should have small celebrations at their conclusion. Project closure also involves certain administrative tasks, some helpful for declaring the immediate project a success and some helpful for improving the probability of future project successes. The administrative tasks include such things as signing off on any outside contracts (so that contractors can be paid), documenting important lessons learned (positive and negative), rewarding the project team and others who enabled the success, recognizing the effort, and updating strategic plans. Although there are numerous ways to plan and manage a project, all methodologies share one common theme—to acknowledge and manage the risk of failure. Whether it’s painting the front porch or putting a man on the moon, the goal of project management is to ensure that the goal is met, preferably on time and within budget. NOTE 1. Allen, Getting Things Done
CHAPTER 13
USING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO PREPARE FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
You know you’re in an immature organization when you are told over and over again that the process can’t be captured because it’s more art than science.
Another title for this chapter could have been, “Moving from a TaskDriven to a Process-Oriented Organization.” Process management, like project management, has a driving purpose. In process management, the goal is to grow the organization from a culture of simply “getting things done” to one where it strives for excellence. Goals Planning
Policies
Metrics
ce
co
Dr ive n
to
Tas k
llen
A Strategic Maturity Model
ce
ing
ex
Dr iv
or
ted ien Or
Crises
ss ce Pro
Issues
gf
Processes & Procedures
Tasks
ivin
mp let
Str
ion
Results
120
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
If we look at the Strategic Maturity Model, we see a natural progression from dealing with crises (the ultimate result of failing to plan), issues, tasks, and finally basing our efforts on results to a new, different view point. The model is depicted as a hill because it is a difficult climb to move away from crisis management and the accompanying “hero worship” to a state where we are driven by our desire to achieve goals that are set proactively. For an organization to move from a purely reactive to a proactive mode is a struggle. There are many barriers and people within the organization, whose worth has been defined by their ability to manage each new crisis, who will not want to climb the hill. When the organization reaches the peak, the point where the view changes from task driven to process oriented, life gets easier. And change speeds up as you move downhill. Instead of a steady and strong push up the hill, you will need to learn to play the brakes a little so you don’t lose control. In other words, you’ll have to ensure that you have all of the proper controls in place— from process documentation to measurements of success. When an organization can focus on goals and a planned future, it is ready to mature. It is ready to strive for excellence, focusing on planning and the policy framework. Immature organizations happily live on the left side of the taskdriven/process-oriented hill. It is difficult for an organization to initially climb the hill, but mature organizations are accustomed to crossing the peak and working on the right side in order to achieve their goals with excellence. Although being crisis-focused is the least desirable state for an organization (bottom left), it’s the most common. Everybody, it seems, is exhilarated by a crisis. Many organizations actually reward fire fighters, recognizing those super-heroes who help them recover from the latest crisis. In fact, some organizations inadvertently encourage arsonists to set more fires because they totally ignore the “preventionist” who stops the fires from happening in the first place; they instead put all of their reward-andrecognition efforts into lauding the fire fighter. This habit makes it extremely difficult for the organization to change. In fact, this habit is so bad that it is akin to addiction—the addiction to urgency. Urgency is action, gets the blood boiling, allows people to be demanding, and sometimes even disrespectful of others. Urgency allows the super-heroes to cut corners, to do whatever it takes to put out the fire. How do you quickly or easily move from rewarding those who rescue the organization from the flames of a crisis to making that activity far less important? We see it in our society all the time; we
USING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO PREPARE FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
121
don’t give the key to the city to the person who installed thousands of smoke detectors, thereby saving hundreds of lives; instead we give the key to the person who ran into the burning building and saved one life. Of course, that was a brave and selfless act, which deserves applause. But so does the person who worked diligently to keep the fire from happening in the first place. We need to reward those who keep the crises from occurring, the wars from starting, or the crimes from being committed. An interesting side note is that one of the first suspects police investigate in any arson case is the first person on the scene, and often it’s that person who heroically saves the people in the burning structure. Yes, even in society-at-large, we have taught people that it may be beneficial—from a reward-and-recognition standpoint—to start fires! Back to our diagram. To get to the other side of the hill, organizations normally struggle up to the peak. It’s extremely rare that an organization can leap from the valley to the peak. Most move from purely crisis-driven (which is intuitively bad) to issue-driven (“issues” being the current term for “problems”). Even the best fire fighter would get tired of fighting fires every day. We seek some form of normalcy. We want to feel that our work has a purpose and a direction. Becoming issue-driven is that next logical step. We seek out and find what the issues are for our customers. What is bothering them the most? What are they unhappy about? What do they want us to change? Sound familiar? It’s a natural progression for an organization. We even build surveys, hold focus groups, and conduct interviews with our customers to help us better understand their needs and issues. Don’t be fooled—this is not a metrics-driven behavior; metrics represent far more complex considerations, and significant maturity, to properly develop and use. At this level of progress, customer issues drive our work, our projects, and our plans for the future. We dedicate current and future resources against these issues (once we begin to deeply listen to the customers). We believe that if we eliminate the customer issues and satisfy their needs, we will also eliminate most of the crises and provide better service. We will have a purpose. Well, this is true up to a point, when we realize that our jobs aren’t fun anymore. Issues change regularly, but it doesn’t take long for people to see that they’re doing little “work,” but lots of re-work, correcting problems—some of which they recognize could have been avoided at the beginning. And, because we are not yet at the task-driven level, we find ourselves focused on resolving issues, feeling like we’re never getting ahead.
122
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Unfortunately at this stage of (im)maturity, we run the real risk of creating more issues from our solutions. We don’t have rigor or structure around our way of resolving the issues; the only focus is resolution, and everyone may be coming up with individual fixes rather than shared solutions. Crises and issue resolution are too emotional, and each event too unique, to facilitate good management. Managers need consistency so they know what they’re evaluating. Eventually part or all of the organization awakens to the fact that it is still creating crises, more issues, and has no real structure to the work. The organization still creates opportunities to be super heroes, although it no longer rewards them. Managers realize that they have to define what their unit does, and perhaps understand what others in the organization do. The manager sees that his unit, as well as herself, needs to be task-driven so that they can focus on what needs to be done. Then, as issues are identified, the unit can wisely identify the tasks that will answer the need. The unit can decide if they are good at performing the tasks, and improve how well they perform. Again, this is natural. As the organization gets a little more time on its hands (you’re not dealing with as many fires since you stopped setting some, and there are at least brief periods between issues) it can focus on structure. Everyone desires some level of repeatability in what they do. At some time in your life (maybe quite frequently) you’ve created a to-do list. That would be the issues list for your organization. Later, you may have decided it could be useful to write down all the things you do, so you can either feel good about yourself (man, I do a lot) or so you can figure out how to stop doing things you don’t want to (I have too much to do). Being taskdriven may at first be more attractive to managers than to the rankand-file. Rather than having absolutely no clue what their workers are doing, now they have a list of tasks that define the work. They can observe and judge both the task and the quality of the task performance. Managers realize quickly that although they can judge workers on their task completion, it is much better to judge them on the results. Managers learn that if they say you are performing the task well, and then the results don’t meet expectations, they get burned. It requires a technically proficient manager to reward task-driven behavior, and then she has to wait to see if the results meet the higher-level expectations. But it’s much safer and easier to only look at the results. That said, it is the natural progression anyway. As stated in the
USING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO PREPARE FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
123
Recognition chapter, you can applaud the effort, but save the rewards for the actual results. We can’t focus solely on the task without regard for the results. When we become results-driven, we ensure that the tasks we’re performing will get us to the proper outcome. We work with the end in mind. Again, the natural (but sometimes difficult) progression toward maturity leads us up the hill, from being results-driven to goaldriven. Goal-driven behavior may on the surface look a lot like issuedriven behavior, but rather than chase after the current problem (or crisis), the organization is planning. The organization is determining what it wants to accomplish (results) over a longer term, hopefully 3–5 years into the future. This is an optimistic hope. Most organizations that reach the peak of the hill do so by maturing slowly. The trip up the hill is hard and arduous. It takes time. It’s highly unlikely that after climbing all the way up that hill, the organization can immediately see 3–5 years out. What is more likely is that all of the goals the organization settles on will be targeted to be completed within the next 12 months. Some may be only 1-month goals. Again, although this is not ideal, it should be expected. Eventually the organization will grow and progress from shortterm goals to longer-term goals. This requires a major, quite visible, culture change. It requires that we’ve moved far away from crisisdriven behaviors. Yes, a crisis could still occur, but we don’t live and breathe crises; they have ceased being the normal environment. However, each step up the hill requires a lot of effort and we don’t completely leave the past behind. We can lose our footing, slipping and sliding down the slope occasionally as we struggle up the hill. When we become issue-driven, we are still also putting out fires (and probably still setting a couple). When we are camped out at the taskand results-driven areas, we will have far fewer crises, but will still deal with them more regularly than we’d like. Also keep in mind that although part of the organization reaches a new base camp, there will always be members (units, sections, and individuals) who stay behind. This is even true in a pocket of maturity. You could have five of seven workers moving up the hill together in concert, while two are waist-deep in crisis management. When you move your unit up the hill, individuals who languish behind may need your help to give up the past. They are probably your super-heroes who enjoyed the rewards of putting out fires. Naturally they won’t want to move forward; on at least a subconscious level, they don’t want to leave the bottom of the hill where they’ve been able to excel.
124
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
As organizations mature, management and leadership attitudes tend to change regarding the performance management of units or individuals who cannot (or will not) make the transition and engage fully with the shifting culture. Be careful to not ostracize the few who lag behind; you helped create that situation, so be understanding. Why would a star player on your team want to change to a new system where they become just a role player? You will have to find ways to help the person continue to shine, but for different reasons. They will have to excel at preventing fires instead of extinguishing them. Goals are the peak. When we become truly goal-driven, we find that we start to look farther out. We are moving noticeably from driving to completion to a state where we’re prepared to start striving for excellence. As we climb the mountain, we are still driven by our need to solve, to resolve, and to complete. Even when we reach the top, we initially work on short-term goals, things we can accomplish in short order and feel good about. The really good news? We’ve reached the top. And after a rest, while we learn to look 3 to 5 years into the future, the trip down the other side of the hill will be much easier. Beware, though; sometimes when we’ve reached the peak, we feel so good about our accomplishments that we don’t want to go down the hill. We want to stay atop the mountain, enjoy the view, and continue to applaud our achievements. Although going down the other side will be easier (and faster), that also means that we may not receive as many individual accolades—at least not from our management. Instead of getting rewards and recognition for putting out fires and completing tasks, our self-worth will be based on, not independence, but inter-dependence. We’ll start measuring our successes in how well the unit is doing as a whole. We won’t be getting as many individual “atta boys” because we will be functioning more as a team. Our greatest successes will show up in better services, products, customer appreciation, and we will become more efficient at what we do. When organization success begins to be cheered internally, we will have begun moving downhill with a new emphasis and a new view of the landscape. We will be striving for excellence instead of driving for completion. Instead of being driven, we become focused. As we identify longer-term goals, we naturally find that we need to build plans for achieving those goals. The activity of planning, spending our energies in critical thought before we act, is a very mature behavior. “Measure twice, cut once,” as carpenters say.
USING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO PREPARE FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
125
In documenting our plans, we create a vehicle for communicating why, what, when, how, and with whom we will work toward those goals. It allows others to weigh in and give us feedback. Of course, we could formulate goals and then not move downhill. Leadership could even build a plan and hide it from everyone else. But, if we’ve traveled up the hill on our own (versus taking a magical helicopter ride over the peak, skipping the benefits of the struggle), we will be primed for an even more mature culture. We easily move from goals to planning them, and then to processes and procedures. The plans have to be living plans (see the chapter, “Putting Strategy into Strategic Planning”) and include the high-level processes and procedures required to make the goal a reality. Your newfound process focus will allow the organization to become energized around how things are done, not simply around what gets done. The organization will be able to identify how it currently performs functions and see the interactions and interdependencies. This understanding will enable the organization to improve on a level that will generate a more efficient workforce. You may have been quite effective climbing the left side of the hill, but now you will have the opportunity to also become more efficient. When we speak of processes, many people (of a certain age) remember being hammered by Michael Hammer’s “Process Re-Engineering.”1 Business process reengineering (BPR) was a brilliant concept until it started being used as an excuse to oust thousands of “unnecessary” employees across many industries. Real process engineering (whether it’s the first instance or the twelfth iteration) begins with documenting existing processes, some of which prove to be subprocesses within bigger workflows. When the documenting begins, the conversations start. “Why do you do it that way?,” “Here’s how I do it,” or “This is how we’ve always done it.” Facilitated conversations can be structured to yield single methods, single business processes that an entire group of people can have in front of them and follow. In large organizations, people are divided into units or departments, and oddly enough, work flows between departments. Purchasing knows what the sales people have been selling, and places orders for materials accordingly. Receiving receives those materials, but then must notify production to work on the materials, and then notify accounts payable when the materials arrive. Production has to notify shipping when the products are ready for delivery, and someone has
126
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
to notify accounts receivable to bill the customers. In this simplistic example, a minimum of seven different units are involved. As you know (or can guess), immature organizations might have 12 or 200 people across those seven units, with 50 percent of those people “doing their own thing” as far as work processes are concerned. One easy way to see this is when some rarely noticed staffer goes on vacation and two days later people start screaming. Someone’s private process just crashed into someone else’s process. At minimum, these seven example units should have “local” processes within their own areas. Ideally, representatives of all seven units have gone through a facilitated process engineering cycle that resulted in a single system-wide process that everyone in all seven units can understand. Workers might only have a deep understanding of their local processes, but they can be far more efficient and effective if they have a bigger picture in mind, the bigger workflow. Anomalies and mistakes are quickly identified and rectified. Customer inquiries are handled faster, and customer complaints aren’t nuisances, but opportunities to confirm whether the complaint reflects a one-off or systemic problem. Sharing process information is an advanced behavior and is covered in more detail in our chapter on “Getting Organized with a Process Asset Library.” In a naturally maturing organization, policy-centric efforts typically follow process-centric development. As with goal setting, management may “jump the gun” and try to implement policy as a panacea while they are still at the bottom of the hill looking up toward the peak. “Who did that? We need a policy prohibiting that!” To deal with an immature organization, management sometimes believes that they simply need to find the correct talisman—a silver bullet, crucifix, or string of garlic. Metrics, strategic plans, or policies sometimes are proposed as the best way to slay the monster. As we have said throughout, attempting to use these solutions when the organization is immature (still struggling to climb the left side of the hill) will result in frustration, anger, and failure. This misstep occurs because these tools are touted by mature organizations as beneficial, but when forced upon an immature organization, they will cause more pain and problems than pleasure or solutions. Policy, when developed and delivered in its proper time, is an effective method of capturing the “musts” for an organization and for interactions between the organization and others. Policy can help define relationships between an organization and its suppliers, ven-
USING PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO PREPARE FOR CULTURAL CHANGE
127
dors, and customers. Policy puts down in writing the standards that the organization wants to live by. These are typically not clear when the organization is in the throes of struggling up the hill. And they won’t become clear until the organization fully understands the why, what, when, who, and how answers. The final growth step along the strategic maturity model is to focus on metrics. This makes total sense, mostly because metrics are an improvement tool that is best used on a mature organization. Although they can be used in various incarnations with any organization (regardless of maturity), to become metricscentric requires an organization to be fully in control of its culture. Besides the inherent dangers of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data, metricscentric behavior requires that the organization—management and workforce—be ready and able to use the measures to good effect. One of the things making this change difficult for immature organizations is that the mature behaviors listed on the right of the model (the down slope) are nonactivities. From goals to metrics, leadership tends to view these activities as overhead—items that don’t directly produce results in the same sense as the task side does. This is when it pays to remember that mature behaviors can be practiced in “pockets of maturity” within an otherwise immature organization. The down slope contains behaviors/activities that are done before and after the tasks are performed. Although they support rigor and structure, they’re neither crisis-related nor “sexy” activities. Few people get accolades for developing policies, documenting processes, or collecting metrics. As your organization improves and matures, even if you still can’t implement an enterprise-wide effort, you can find Champions who are way ahead and are ready for advanced work. NOTE 1. Hammer & Champy, Reengineering the Corporation.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 14
TRACKING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S GROWTH WITH THE HELP OF ANNUAL INTERNAL ASSESSMENTS
You know you’re in an immature organization when units are not allowed to perform internal assessments for any number of reasons, ranging from “you don’t know how to use the data” to “internal assessments are a waste of time—you won’t get the truth.”
In the chapter, “First Steps—Understanding Ourselves,” we introduced the concept of conducting an initial assessment to determine whether your organization is capable of enterprise-wide improvement. If you conducted such an assessment, chances are you found that the overall organization was immature, or you identified some specific departments that were immature. In either case, just acknowledging that immaturity exists is a huge step forward, a step toward reality and away from denial. This natural denial is rooted in our belief that we can do anything. We remember our mothers telling us that as long as we went to school, worked hard, and ate our vegetables, there was nothing we could not achieve. As organizational leaders, we also believe there is no problem we cannot solve, no expansion we cannot achieve, and no organization-wide improvement we cannot realize. Although this confidence is healthy (and some say necessary) to be a successful leader, it can be very costly. The good news is this: there really is a way to achieve the ultimate goal of improvement. The bad news is that leadership confuses the goal—improvement, with the methodology—organization-wide.
130
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Improvement can be achieved in an immature organization, just not all at once or enterprise-wide. That is why it’s essential to determine whether the organization is actually capable of such change before investing valuable resources. An annual assessment offers an excellent tool for determining an organization’s growth in maturity (ability to improve). Regardless of your organization’s disposition, you can benefit from the findings of an annual maturity assessment. Rarely do we find an entire organization to be incapable of change, and it is equally rare for us to find a company capable of changing the entire organization. Even in predominantly immature organizations, we find pockets of maturity. An organizational immaturity assessment (you can find one in Appendix 1) should capture the view of an organization from the inside. This internal assessment allows the organization to identify differences in opinion due to viewpoint. The management tier perhaps sees things differently than the frontline staff and vice versa. When we conducted our first internal assessment, we called it InnerView. As the InnerView was designed to be taken by the entire organization, it was beneficial in: • Identifying pockets of maturity • Measuring growth in maturity over time • Supporting our efforts in addressing Champions Though the survey could be used within just a single department, we found there are often concerns about maintaining anonymity, especially in an immature organization. Of course, you could easily have the surveys collected and summarized by an outside party, and at such a minor expense that it may still be worth the investment. If the respondents don’t trust that there will be absolutely no negative repercussions, your survey will be worse than worthless. Incorrect data, when assumed to be accurate, is worse than no data at all. The responses to the InnerView are a collection of perceptions. What we actually measure are shifts. Shifts in perceptions, occurring over time and made up of more than 10 responses, are bankable. Shifts toward increasing maturity are very positive indicators. Shifts toward immaturity signal danger. If a part of the organization is regressing toward immaturity, it not only deserves investigation, but demands it. If a child regressed in maturity (not for minutes, but for days on end), it would be a serious sign of potential problems, a warning that should not be ignored. The health of the child is at stake and the same is true for an organization.
TRACKING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S GROWTH
131
When looking at the strategic maturity model offered in the chapter on process management, it becomes evident that an organization’s culture will either mature or regress—it can’t, and it won’t, stand still. An internal assessment will provide insights to the speed and direction of the organization’s movement. It is possible for an organization to become immature over time. It’s all dependent on the culture and what is considered the norm. It may be enough to know where the organization is in terms of maturity and to gain feedback on how it is moving (direction) and how fast it’s getting there. The maturity assessment adds value by indicating shifts or trends, and as such can guide your steps in organizational improvement. One means of assessing maturity (or lack thereof) is adoption by asking questions about the existence and visibility of organization-wide processes. Any of the mature behaviors listed in this book would work. Our questions from a recent client survey covered the following five process areas: • • • • •
Training Plans Strategic Plans Processes Metrics Project Management
You could select other mature behaviors to measure; we picked these five because so many organizations are (almost completely) task-driven, and these areas reflect the “striving for excellence” process-oriented side of the Strategic Maturity Model. Leadership occasionally talks about one or more items on this list, but staff either do see or don’t see actions taken around these, and form their opinions accordingly. For each item, the possible responses escalate from “do artifacts exist?” to “are they well-known?” to “are they used on a daily (regular) basis?” The structure can be seen in the example below: TRAINING PLANS • • • • •
Are there training plans for every position? Are there training plans for every person? Does everyone understand the training plan concept? Are the training plans used to schedule, track, and plan training? Are the training plans used (written in, read, referred to): (a) annually, (b) semi-annually, (c) quarterly, or (d) monthly?
132
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Based on how the questions above are answered, we can determine how mature the organization is for this focus area. If training plans are not used to schedule, track, and plan training on a regular or periodic basis, the training plans are not part of the normal functioning of the organization’s business or culture. This would indicate that training plans (if they exist at all) are not viewed as a significant benefit to the organization. Keep in mind that a single assessment cycle is not enough. Although you can determine immaturity, a single assessment can’t tell you if you are progressing or regressing. In the example above, the organization could fully believe in training plans, but due to other constraints, not have implemented them yet. Leadership tends to be impatient, which is why InnerView is not just the first assessment, but an annual assessment. Three years are barely enough time to be certain what mature behaviors are being developed and where. Doing an annual assessment for four or more consecutive years provides an accurate view of maturity development, while the original self-assessment is only a snapshot in time. Even a mature organization is typically at varying levels of maturity in relation to different process areas. Just as there are normally pockets of maturity in an immature organization, there may well be pockets of immaturity in a generally mature organization. So why aren’t organizations doing it this way already? Well, most organizations, like most people, are naturally resistant to change. The same holds true for organizational leaders, who often want change to occur for the employees, but not so much for themselves. Think like a CEO and consider how you would respond to the following. “Sir, we’ve completed our assessment. It only took us a month, and only 45 minutes from each of your employees over that time period. We assessed over 40 specific areas. Based on this assessment, we don’t want you to create any improvement programs or mandate any changes. All we want you to do is share the results with the organization so we can all review it and begin a dialogue. Don’t worry, though; we will help the organization grow. In fact, we have a very ambitious plan. We’re going to visit each of your managers and work with them on specific areas for improvement. We’ll find out what they want to improve, where their passions are, and we’ll assist them in moving forward in those areas.” Not too bad, right? You might be willing to accept it—that is, until you ask for specifics or until we describe what we won’t deliver: “We won’t be able to show you improvement on all 40-plus items. We won’t be able to even address all the items. In fact, we probably
TRACKING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S GROWTH
133
won’t be addressing any of the items that are the weakest (chances are they’re weak partly because no one has passion around them— hence no Champions). We’ll only address some of the 40, and with only some of your managers. Basically, I can’t tell you what we’ll work on or when, but we should have a good set of individual successes to share with you in the near future.” Definitely a harder sell. The question was, why aren’t organizations doing it this way already? Actually, some are doing it exactly this way, but it’s not organized, nor part of a program, or a concerted effort. We naturally work on the things we enjoy or have passion for. If we’re a Champion for an area, we’ll probably be working that area already or at least be planning to work it. What’s normally lacking is help and support from the organization, along with the fact that we rarely celebrate these efforts, as they aren’t publicized. Champions help improve their sections in certain areas because they believe in the change, not to score kudos. Champions also want to see results around their areas of passion, so they will be very creative in working with and influencing others. One final recommendation when working with the assessments or other evaluative tools: resist the temptation to develop a rating. Go ahead and keep all the answers. Keep even the ones that are obviously invalid. In the end, a single answer won’t matter; the real value comes from its trend indicators, its support of a common language, and in starting conversations about Organizational Immaturity. A Quick-hit Method Similar to the warning at the bottom of the estimated MPG labels on cars and trucks, “your assessment benefits may vary.” The process discussed above featured the five areas our organization was trying to implement, but you may want to increase or decrease the count. By designing an instrument that simply seeks to identify the organization’s change capability we can eliminate the need to query on multiple processes. We can also avoid having to identify candidate processes. Instead of multiple areas, we’ll ask about one, whatever one the respondent chooses to identify. Rather than ask about training plans, we will use the following lead-in questions: a. Name one process or improvement the organization has adopted enterprise-wide in the
134
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
last five years. Examples could include training plans, a strategic plan, process definitions, service level agreements, or metrics. b. If you cannot think of a successful implementation, can you identify a process or improvement the organization tried and failed to adopt enterprise-wide? If the respondent identifies a successful implementation (answers positively to “a.”), ask the follow-up questions demonstrated above. • Is this improvement working for every position in the organization? • Does everyone understand the concept? • Is the improvement used as intended? Is it used throughout the organization, by everyone, all the time? We are trying to determine the level of institutionalization. Is the improvement/process implemented organization-wide? Has it become part of the normal day-to-day operations? Has it become part of the culture? Will it outlive its sponsor? If the respondent gave a negative reply to the first question, and instead offered a failed attempt, simply ask the respondent for her opinions on why it failed. This line of questioning is direct and to the point. When administered to a sampling of the organization, it significantly reduces the possibility of a strong leader overpowering the culture for a short time span. Just because an effort has been implemented organizationwide—performance evaluations, for example—doesn’t mean the organization is truly capable of change. Although this quick-hit methodology is shorter, more direct, and possibly a more accurate measure of Organizational Immaturity, its weakness is it doesn’t help you decide where to go next. If you use the “quick hit,” you will still need to identify pockets of maturity, areas ready for improvement, and improvements most likely to be adopted. Best practices would entail a two-phased approach: First identify if the organization is immature using the quick-hit process on targeted groups of the workforce, and then follow up with areas of existing strength.
PART 4
BIGGER CHALLENGES: TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL
The U.S. military has always been at the forefront of organizational improvement. The military has embraced most proven methodologies and funded the creation of others. From the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model to Total Quality Management and Six Sigma, the military has been an excellent proving ground for improvement methodologies. So it was no surprise when, in the late twentieth century, the U.S. Air Force decided that for any software house to maintain or develop software for the Air Force, the organization would have to be a Software Engineering Institute CMM® Level III or better. The 3-year deadline was not only levied on contracted third-party software houses, but also on the few internal units maintaining software. One unit at a Midwest Air Force base took on the challenge, which was immense because it was at best a level I organization. The unit hired a consulting firm, which was certified to perform CMM® assessments, to assist in the effort. The unit also stood up a four-person Software Process Improvement (SPI) office that had the move to level III as its first (and, until successful, only) assignment. Other consultants were hired as needed— including a metrics expert—to help with measuring success and the requirements to use metrics. The overall
136
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
goal was simple: move the unit to at least a level III within two years. Looking back, it is clear that even with an Air Force–level mandate, total commitment of leadership, millions of dollars, thousands of hours, full-time dedicated personnel, and eventual documented success, the organization was actually suffering from organizational immaturity. Even though the organization achieved level III of the CMM, it became obvious that to maintain the rating required constant vigilance of the SPI office, leadership, and continued oversight by the contracted consulting firm. This was made even more evident when the leadership changed (a reality in the military). The new commander (CEO in civilian terms) didn’t quite understand or buy into the processes and controls necessary to maintain a level III in the CMM. He decided after one lengthy trip through the process that the processes that were the foundation of reaching level III should be abandoned. Of course, he could have opted to have them streamlined—to apply some other improvement methods to make the processes less wieldy—but alas, there was little resistance when he decided to scrap them.This lack of resistance, unlike the wall of resistance displayed when the effort started to achieve level III, was a clear indicator that the new processes were not fully accepted by the organization. The change could only be maintained with a constant watchdog mentality (the quality assurance shop in conjunction with the SPI office took care of this up until that point). This means that although the change was implemented, it was not institutionalized. So the question is, was the original effort successful? If the measure of success was achieving level III, the answer is a simple “yes.” If success requires that the organization change—and fully accept, adopt, and adapt to the new processes—success was far from evident. This is the heart of the issue of organizational immaturity and why it is overlooked many times. A strong leader can force change as long as his iron-will and iron-fist maintains control. In the case of the Air Force unit, it required the commander’s unflinching dedication, the SPI and QA offices’ vigilance, and the constant feedback and assessment by the consulting firm to keep the organization from slipping back to what it really wanted to do.
TRACKING YOUR ORGANIZATION’S GROWTH
137
If the mature behaviors in Part 3 scared you, these will send you to the medicine cabinet looking for Valium. These behaviors are not for the faint of heart, and for the most part not for the immature organization. Even if you find pockets of maturity, the following behaviors are best suited to an organization that, as a whole, is on its way to maturity. We offer these within the pages of this book because we want you to know what the possibilities for the future hold, and mostly because we want you to avoid these behaviors until your organization is ready. The Engagement Ring is an excellent place to start searching out champions and leveraging the ones you find. Build up a contingent of champions who learn from each other, leverage each other’s successes, and eventually you will be able to permeate the ideas across your organization. There is a very good chance that you currently have champions within your organization for each of the Engagement Ring components already laboring away in secret. The mature behaviors offered in Part 3 are tougher. Usually to be effective, even a pocket of maturity will require others within the organization to “play along.” They can be done in isolation, but organizational maturity has a much better chance of success if other units are involved. The advanced behaviors we offer next almost demand cross-unit involvement. A process asset library is usable at the unit level, but becomes exponentially more valuable with every unit that joins in its use. Career planning and coaching can be done on a one-on-one basis (and the actual planning and coaching should be), but to make it actually work, at some point the champion has to gain the support of other department leads, upper management, or just the HR department. Service level agreements will require input from customers, but also require other units in the organization to agree to them. Unless the champion’s unit has customers that have no other interaction with the organization, service level agreements will require other units to play. Metrics, in the sense of measuring quality or in developing a metrics program, require behavioral change at all levels of management and a level of maturity that should scare any immature organization away. Not only do these advanced behaviors beg for larger scopes of involvement—which means a higher level of maturity in the organization—they also carry with them higher risk. If metrics, or career coaching, or service level agreements are not done properly, they can cause more harm than good to the organization. So, beware. It’s worth it to know about these behaviors, so you know what you’re shooting for when your organization matures. It’s also good
138
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
to know that if you are in an immature organization, you won’t be able to effectively implement these behaviors organization-wide; chances are you shouldn’t even try to implement them at the unit (champion) level. If you find someone—a champion that you want to support that really wants to do one of these—double-check that she doesn’t also want to tackle one of the other less advanced behaviors first. If she is dead set on one of these advanced behaviors, ask her if she can do it alone, or if she will need to involve other units in the organization (she may not have read this book, and therefore think it can be done enterprise-wide). If she rightly identifies the other players (whoever they are), ask her if she believes they’re champions for it. Until she gets true buy-in, at the champion level from the other “players,” it can’t be done. It truly is impossible. So, once again, proceed with caution.
CHAPTER 15
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH A PROCESS ASSET LIBRARY
You know you’re in an immature organization when there are multiple process asset libraries, none of which are the organization’s standard bearer.
A simple definition of a process asset library is a place for tools, templates, and process definitions. It is a single repository for information that can be accessed by anyone in the organization. If you want to find out how to do any key process, there’s a one-stop shop for finding what you need. All policy framework documents, such as process documentation, policies, standards, metrics guides, and project tools, are maintained in one place. Templates and forms for everything from meeting minutes to agendas, from how-to’s to whynot’s are stored there as well. What a powerful tool for sharing information! As you may have guessed, a process asset library (PAL) is much more useful (and used) within a mature organization. It becomes a great tool for standardizing workflows and communicating process information across an organization. Unfortunately, an immature organization is, by definition, not ready for a PAL. Although a PAL could be used within an immature organization as a means of encouraging information sharing, chances are it would fail to be fully utilized; it would not be accessed or contributed to on a regular basis. Worse, an immature organization may end up with competing libraries, with each department creating and maintaining its
140
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
own. From a grassroots perspective, if a department is willing to be a process asset library Champion, a departmental library can be built, used, and shown to other departments. Anyone can initiate a PAL, but unlike the other mature behaviors, you cannot have multiple libraries coexisting. The problem will be that no one will know which is the definitive source for a particular asset. And regardless of how it begins, eventually there will be duplication. Logically, if you haven’t defined your processes or implemented a policy framework, you won’t have quality documents or information to put into such a library. The PAL requires design, development, implementation, and maintenance—work an immature organization won’t feel like doing, but a Champion department or unit might. Being “glass half-full” people, we don’t mean to convey a negative view of the chances of implementing a PAL. Being realists though, we have to warn against attempting a process asset library until you are well on your way to maturity. WHAT GOES IN? A general question is how much should be put into the asset library. What qualifies as an asset and what doesn’t? If the library is designed well, you can leave the determination to what should be in the PAL to the owner of the asset. There really isn’t a good reason to restrict what goes into the library. As long as the object has been quality-checked and appropriately documented, it should have a place in the PAL. Assets don’t have to be used by everyone in a group to make it a candidate for the library. A viable candidate is any asset that would benefit the organization by its being available and shared. Processes or tools can’t be adapted to other functions if no one knows they exist or where to find them. The documentation should at a minimum include: • Date entered in the PAL • Submitter. Who submitted the item into the PAL. • Owner. Who should be contacted about the item. If a user has questions about the item, if the item needs to be updated, or if the item needs more clarification. • Title with alternate tags. Each item needs a clear and meaningful title. Each item should also include logical cross-tags; markers that can be used to find related items. • Purpose. What the asset is used for. Why would I want to access it?
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH A PROCESS ASSET LIBRARY
141
• Application. How the asset should be used. Is it a template? A form to be filled in? Is it a guide to be followed? • References. Any required references for the item. Any suggested “other sources” or documents which may be helpful. Is it based on a policy, law, rule, or other asset? There are some practical products that go into the larger framework of defining our work, such as organizational policies, standards, standard operating procedures (SOPs), product manuals and catalogs, and employee handbooks, for example. Some assets may require restricted access, such as information on accounts payable or accounts receivable, or copies of customer or vendor contracts. These types of items might be deemed too confidential for general access. It can go in; it just requires controls to restrict access. A five-page process for using the floor-buffing machine, which might have zero interest to anyone in the organization other than the one or two people who use the machine once every three months, can and should go in. Other than the confidential information that needs to be secured, we should not judge the items based on the number of potential users. You never know who will benefit from an item in your PAL. You never know how someone may benefit—the process document for floor buffing may remind someone that the service contract on the machine needs to be renewed. Acknowledging that trade secrets, personal information on employees, and information that, by law, cannot be shared are not PAL-suitable information; there is almost nothing else that shouldn’t be accessible by everyone in the organization. It’s important to ensure that what goes into the library is of a good quality—“garbage in, garbage out” fits perfectly in describing the PAL structure. There should be a review and approval process for all submissions, but as noted earlier, the goal should be to add as much as possible, making it a ready source for all types of information. The criteria for rejection should be based on an organization’s values and the functional quality of the asset, not on a reviewer’s perception of the usefulness of the asset. The usefulness of any submitted asset can be judged six months or a year after submission by the number of downloads or views by end users (of course, information known to be rarely required can be identified as such so as not to prematurely eliminate it). But frequency of use is not enough; emergency procedures, which we hope will never be used, have a valid place in the PAL. Bottom line? Err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.
142
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
WHO CAN ACCESS THE PAL? Like organizational metrics, everyone in the organization should have access to the process asset library (though not necessarily to every document therein). The PAL only achieves its intended purpose when it is used. If all you do is store information, you don’t have a library. It has to be open to everyone in the organization so that it belongs to everyone in the organization. Although a fully functional PAL requires a lot of work (naming conventions, access rights, submission procedures, etc.), it’s enough for a maturing organization to simply offer a means for sharing process assets. This brings us full circle to “what is considered a process asset?” What constitutes value for the organization? And the good news is that you don’t have to make that determination: everything is a potential process asset. By providing the ability for organizational units to submit and share process assets, we are assisting the organization to grow. Of course, an immature organization will not want to populate the library—information in the PAL would dilute the equity the asset owner has realized from the item. It would permit, even enable, others to benefit, and would allow the organization as a whole to improve and grow—not necessarily a goal within a culture of immaturity, whose members care more about personal advancement than the organization’s health. HOW TO ACCESS THE PAL? A process asset library, in its simplest form, is a common repository of information. If you’ve ever used a shared space or common folders on a hard drive, you were essentially using a PAL. The key to an effective asset library is the controls and access levels possible. Unlike your shared space, where you may have collaborated on a document, a PAL is a true library, one in which you can check out assets. But, as with your local (or school) library, you can’t write in the books. The PAL cannot allow users to modify the contents willynilly. There are other tools for this, such as a Wiki. Only after the collaboration has produced a solid product should it be considered for the PAL. When someone sees the need to update or modify existing information, the update should go through the standard submission process, with reference to the doc(s) it’s meant to replace. Of course, for any library to reach its “potential,” it must have customers who want to access the materials. A PAL should allow for easy access, download, or viewing of assets. It’s only the updating,
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH A PROCESS ASSET LIBRARY
143
modification, or deletion of items that must be strictly controlled. In our present technological environment, any PAL must allow for smart searches of its assets. The use of multiple tags/keywords for each item will help greatly in this. An organization may want to password-protect various areas within the PAL, but again it’s important to remember that a PAL is meant to be used. Password protection should only be applied to portions of information not meant to be shared across departments, or openly. A PAL is only fully realized when it becomes a highly used source of information. In a metrics sense, “usage” would be a PAL’s key measure of success. MAINTAINING THE PAL The idea behind having submission documentation (date, submitter, owner, etc.) on each item is to allow easy maintenance of the PAL. Although you don’t want to mimic the open editing of a Wiki, an ideal (which a mature organization can certainly achieve) is to have the users of the PAL maintain the library themselves. To compare it to a Wiki would be valid if the Wiki is one in which there are stringent review processes in place. Automation and ease are the goals, while the controls have to be reasonable to ensure the quality of the assets is maintained. If each user reviews the items for usefulness, relevance to the listed purpose, and quality of product, and then updates the documentation as necessary, the user base can effectively keep the PAL current. This also promotes use of the PAL. Even with user feedback, the PAL’s maintenance will require a bit of dedicated manpower. Someone (or some group) will have to be the gatekeeper for what gets in. With the continually decreasing price of storage, items may never need to be removed from your PAL. Besides what gets saved in the PAL, updating documents, archiving older versions, and ensuring that tag or keywords, documentation, and submissions are of a high quality will require some oversight. Beyond this, maintenance should not be a major concern and definitely should not be used as an excuse to not create a library. WARNINGS Of course, we are making the assumption that your organization has assets that can be shared. To share an asset, it normally must be documented. An immature organization rarely has documented processes, policies, tools, or viable, useful metrics. But a PAL can
144
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
also be a catalyst for creating, documenting, and sharing process assets. It can be a catalyst toward maturity. Beware, though. Even in a well-meaning organization that is trying to mature, the PAL can become an area of contention, bringing out classic avoidance behaviors. Remember, heroes may not want to share information or create documentation that will make it easy for others to perform difficult tasks—why give away status? And rarely does an immature organization reward people for creating mechanisms that make it possible for others to produce in their absence. To get a PAL off the ground in a somewhat immature organization, incentives may be required. Of course, incentives could be positive for contributing or negative for not, but always start with the positive. BEWARE THE COVERT NAYSAYER Some of the loudest supporters of implementing a PAL may actually want to control what goes in and who has access to it. You may hear any of the following: “Only share what is needed to function at a high level. The janitor doesn’t need to know how our sales process works.” “Part of leadership’s job is to determine what information should be shared, with whom, on a need-to-know-only basis.” “In large organizations, there is literally too much information.” “Access can always be granted upon request.” Two basic viewpoints drive the arguments against sharing information freely. One is control. Information is power only if the information is kept from others who need it. Control allows the person with the information to parse it out as he sees fit, exercising power over those who do not have the information. The more you need or want the information, the more power you give to the person who has it. The second viewpoint is that leadership “must” filter the information given to those within the organization. The excuses for controlling information include the following: there is an enormous amount of information; the information is too complex; or, leaders need to ensure the organization is not distracted by information that it has no need to know. None of these viewpoints are valid to a maturing organization. A maturing organization seeks to make every single member as knowledgeable as possible. A maturing organization wants all of its members to develop professionally and to be fully engaged as part of the larger organizational team. The more everyone knows, the better the
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH A PROCESS ASSET LIBRARY
145
organization will be. Leaders should want the organization, not just themselves, to grow and prosper, and their rewards should only be based on the result of the organization improving, not separate from it.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 16
SHARING THE WEALTH: CAREER PLANNING/COACHING
You know you’re in an immature organization when career planning is done only as the final stage of the annual performance review.
Most high performers attribute their success to their enjoyment in their chosen fields, whether technical, administrative, marketing, or customer service focused. However, for many years and in many organizations, staff members looking to advance in their careers have been “funneled” into the management track. This is due to a lack of clear paths for other-than-managerial advancement, and it continues unchecked partly because leadership sees advancement as equaling joining the ranks of management. Most leaders looked forward to, and worked hard to, achieve leadership positions; shouldn’t everyone? Although some high performers covet the opportunity to manage others, a healthy percentage want to stay in their chosen field on a more involved level than typical management positions allow. Should a chief surgeon be the most experienced surgeon in a hospital, or specialize in managing the staff of surgeons? Should an admired professor become the chair of a college English department only to spend all of her time administering department funds and managing the faculty? In both of these cases (and many other examples), the answer is a range appropriate to the environment and to the person. The surgeon with superior skill and talent for surgery should not leave the operating room behind, and usually is not
148
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
required to do so. And the English professor who can dramatically engage students with authors who have been dead 200 years might actually leave the profession or leave the college if her time were usurped having to “manage” things like who should teach what course, at what hour, in what room. Sometimes a promotion will stretch and advance a person, but other times it may limit the person— not just distancing him from his comfort zone, but distancing him from his passion. Career planning is listed as advanced work because of its scope. We don’t mean merely identifying the worker’s short-term goals or what job they’d like next. Those are fine, but they should have been captured and addressed under professional development. Career planning should be compared to retirement planning. From an individual perspective, it’s a very long-range view of what the worker wants to achieve. From an organizational perspective, career planning is strategic: leaders need to be highly influential. When an organization is functioning well, leaders need to influence culture by reinforcing it; when an organization shows signs of being dysfunctional, leaders need to influence the right level of cultural change to bring the whole back to peak performance. Knowing this, strong leaders constantly provide subtle (and not-so-subtle) challenges to see who might make good successors for various managers, or even for themselves. From an organizational perspective, this is called, cleverly enough, succession planning—what careers the organization would like to see certain individuals pursue. Most times, an individual worker won’t know what or where he wants to be in 10 years. In fact, the younger the worker and the earlier in his work life, the harder it will be for him to think of a future career. In attending college, he picked a major and that major was supposed to be based on a career field, but that does not equal a career plan. Determining where and what a person wants to be 10 years down the road is a difficult task, partly because it requires a large dose of self-honesty. In fact, in many organizations, there is no one sufficiently experienced to act as mentor or coach. By mentoring, we’re not talking about what a supervisor tries to do quickly in the one-hour session set up to go along with performance-management feedback (being conducted once a year). What we mean is coaching individuals over a long term, helping them with introspection, identification of skills and talents, and most importantly, helping them identify their passion. Coaching can be done in an immature organization. But coaching toward career planning is difficult unless the coach only looks out-
SHARING THE WEALTH: CAREER PLANNING/COACHING
149
side the organization for the worker’s future. An organization suffering from Organizational Immaturity will have little to no clear career paths for the worker to follow. And it will be impossible for the coach to identify a career tract outside of the worker’s current path. Information on other jobs won’t be shared, position descriptions will be inaccurate (if they exist), and the hiring process will be an insurmountable barrier. Only when an organization is sharing information readily and looking to hire based on cultural fit can internal career planning hope to succeed. Remember, career planning, like professional development, is not only for the current favored son or daughter. It has to be for everyone. So, if the organization is ready, how do we go about it? How do we help people think of their long-term future? Like retirement planning, the task is one of introspection and inquisitiveness, carried out alone or with the assistance of a coach (perhaps financial advisor in the case of retirement). To coach or mentor appropriately, a mature organization has to help the worker look at herself realistically and determine who and where she is today. It has to then assist her in dreaming of who she may want to be in the far future—not just who in the sense of what job, but who in the sense of life situation. Life situations may cover where to live, what salary range to ask for, what roles and responsibilities to seek, and most importantly, what dreams and aspirations she is passionate about. Maybe you’ve heard this one: “Who cares about their wishes or dreams? We can’t get involved in all of that stuff. We’ve been told to develop a career plan with them, not help them figure out their lives! I don’t have time for this touchy-feely crap.”
Unfortunately, the harsh viewpoint revealed in the box is far more prevalent among managers in immature organizations. It’s a natural and predictable attitude because they are more likely to lack the structure and processes needed by new or untrained managers to effectively promote and support professional development. It’s ironic how many managers spout the refrain, “our greatest resource is our people,” and then lack the skills to develop and nurture that “greatest” resource. Career planning is just one of the many ways management can grow its greatest resource. Even if internal management is not sufficiently experienced or motivated, leaders can still turn to skilled external sources.
150
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
The other unfortunate part of the example given is that career planning definitely requires lots of that “touchy-feely” stuff. You can’t hope to even get close to helping someone plan his future, in a career sense, if you don’t get to know something about his dreams and aspirations for the future. You have to go beyond actual job functions and responsibilities. The worker can’t effectively identify what or where he wants to be in one year, much less ten, if he doesn’t have an idea of who and where he is today. As with strategic planning, the worker has to have some kind of vision for his future. Is he single now, hoping to marry in a year, start a family a few years later? Is he married now, happy spending just an hour a week with his children, or unhappy if he spends less than 30 hours a week with his children? How does the person want to balance work and life? The good news is that the role of mentor or coach in this instance only requires two key skills: listening and showing sincere interest. Part of listening includes asking questions and then listening to the answers. Get workers to “play” with their answers, extending possibilities, considering models. Encourage them to dream. After you get to their dreams, you need to care. If you don’t care about your workers, the best solution is to resign. If you don’t care about your people, you should not be a supervisor, manager, or in management. Because people are truly your greatest asset, stop thinking of them as objects. They’re not something you put in the PAL and pull out when you need them. They have fears, hopes, and dreams. They are extremely complicated organisms. Don’t worry; you don’t have to be a psychiatrist or a priest to them—that’s what referrals are for. But as their boss, you do have to care about them. The hard part for even good managers is for them to care about their workers’ futures, futures that ultimately lead them away from the company. It seems anti-intuitive to put a worker’s future before the company’s, but it’s the only way to ensure a strong, effective workforce. By helping them pursue their dreams, you become a true mentor instead of a barrier to their future. Really, career planning is that simple. Of course, the person providing the coaching must later make suggestions and, through sincere interest, point people in the right direction for finding out more information about potential futures. But remember, we said that most high performers attribute their success to their enjoyment in their chosen fields? We spend an enormous portion of our lives working—hence the phrase, “pick a career you like because you’ll be doing a lot of it.” Sadly, polls show that the vast majority of Amer-
SHARING THE WEALTH: CAREER PLANNING/COACHING
151
icans who’ve been employed over 10 years don’t get much enjoyment from their work, and so don’t think about their careers all that much (not nearly as often as they wonder when they’ll get a raise). Young employees aren’t the only ones who need coaching and mentoring; that is also true for anyone who’s already been working 10 years, who might be all of 32, with 36 more years to go! We’d argue that career planning is the only realistic way to be sure a person is actively engaged with such a large portion of his own life. Martin’s daughter, a freshman in college, wants to be a forensic reconstruction artist. “Why?” is the usual question he gets. The answer is, because she watches a TV show about a forensic anthropologist and one of the costars on the show is a forensic reconstruction artist. That was the catalyst, but she has for years been very intrigued by anthropology and she is a prolific artist. So, she saw an opportunity to combine two of her interests. The point is, not to judge the choices. Martin’s job was clear—help her as much as possible, expose her to friends and acquaintances who know anything about her field of choice, and help find quality answers to her questions. That’s what effective parents do. That’s what mature managers do.
The first step in career planning is finding out what the worker wants to do with his future. The answers (rarely ever a single answer) need to be followed with an examination of current skills (what skills are strongest and can be made even stronger? What skills are weakest and may not realistically ever be developed?), and then explore career options. Only when workers understand realistic options can they make the kinds of choices necessary to develop a career plan. If you do this and show sincere concern for your workers, the company may lose them to a different career path. True, but: 1. The company will never have disgruntled employees going through the motions. 2. The company will attract the very best, because it has built a reputation of caring and helping employees succeed. 3. The company will have built a natural network of positive, supportive, professionals throughout.
152
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Many leaders during the Industrial Revolution espoused a company’s responsibility to the environment, its stakeholders, and its workforce. They preached being a good steward of resources and caring for its number one asset, its people. Some things haven’t changed.
CHAPTER 17
SETTING AND MAINTAINING EXPECTATIONS: SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLAS)
You know you’re in an immature organization when the organization determines the customer’s expectations for a service based on what it can deliver rather than what the customer wants.
Service level agreements (SLAs) simply do not exist in immature organizations—no one would want to be held accountable for some unclear series of small failures that were “someone else’s mistakes.” In departments or units that have been forced by leadership to create SLAs, we’ve seen everything from flimflam language to “quiet” admissions that the quality of the service isn’t actually monitored at all. The purpose of an SLA is to establish a cooperative partnership between parties. An organization may have SLAs with its customers, with its suppliers, or even internally between members of one unit of the organization and other members in other units. In our case, we’re primarily concerned with the partnership between one or more customers of a service and the service provider. By clarifying roles and setting expectations, customers and service providers better understand what each must provide. On a more basic level, a service level agreement is a tool for capturing what we said we’d do, how we will do it, when we’ll do it, and sometimes even why we’re doing it. When we purchase a service (like paying a token for a bus ride) we already know the agreement. Both the service provider and we, the riders, know what we expect. There aren’t really any surprises. But
154
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
that’s because most services we purchase are regulated, controlled, and established, such as public transportation, telephone operations, technical support, checkout at the grocery, or a sales clerk in a store. In the rare instance when the service provider’s delivery doesn’t match our expectations, we generally let the provider know that they’re failing (as in, “I put nine items on the checkout counter and six of them scanned at the wrong price. You need to correct your system or I’m not going to bother shopping here anymore”). In most businesses though, there are internal customers and specialized services that don’t fall into the arena of known expectations. If one group provides editing assistance to a portion of the organization, how does the “customer” of that editing assistance know what content or materials the editing group needs to receive or the timeline for them to complete the editing? How does the editing group know what kind of formatting the customer expects to receive in return? How should the document(s) be sent? What level of quality does the customer expect? How do we determine the time allowed to complete the work? How will we communicate if the items delivered are not up to the necessary standards? This may all seem easy to do, and it is. The smaller the organization, the easier it is. If you work in a 10-person organization and you provide a service to the other people, communications are usually simple and direct. There is little-to-no confusion and everyone knows what to expect. But as the organization’s size grows, this “knowledge” of what to expect becomes problematic. The concept of tossing things “over the wall” for someone else to handle isn’t applicable if you’re so small that you don’t have any walls. This size consideration also applies to our agreements with external customers. When you provide only one or two products or services to a limited audience, it’s easy to communicate to your small number of clients what that service or product entails and what level of quality to expect. And conversely, it’s equally easy to ask your clientele what level of service they require. When you’ve grown to a size that makes communicating with your customers (internal and external) much more difficult, an SLA will help and, paradoxically, the larger the organization, the more difficult it will be to make SLAs. The larger the organization, the more likely it will suffer from Organizational Immaturity. The larger the organization, the harder it will be to overcome that immaturity. In an immature organization, SLAs are nonexistent in part because it requires collaboration between departments—open-and-honest collaboration on how best to serve the customer. Collaboration of
SETTING AND MAINTAINING EXPECTATIONS: SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS
155
this type is not normal for an immature organization. Compound that with the issues of over-controlling leadership, inconsistent management, a combative workforce, and it spells disaster. Service level agreements, like sharing data (PAL) and coaching the workforce, seem to be logical, common sense things to do or have. But, if the improvement requires multiple departments (or the entire organization), by the definition of Organizational Immaturity, service-level collaboration will not be possible until the organization matures. But, as with the PAL and coaching, it is worthwhile to know what you’re shooting for, and what not to try to do before your organization is ready. Typically, an SLA is a document containing the following kinds of information: • Purpose of the specific service—Why are you providing the service? What need does it fulfill? This is the driving force behind all of the other decisions about that service or product. • Who—Who are the parties involved? This SLA is between Party X and Party Y, and has been created in order to define the service needs of Party X and the provision capabilities of that service by Party Y. • Terms of Agreement—This SLA is for t-period of time, at suchand-such cost, or to satisfy such-and-such need. • In Scope—Party Y will deliver the following 4 deliverables to Party X; scope should include more than just the listing of specific deliverables, such as varying qualities of service (e.g., service 1 is available Mondays and Wednesdays; service 2 is available every day between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m.; service 3 delivers a choice of tuna, chicken salad, or ham sandwiches). • Out of Scope—The definition of scope should also include what is not included to ensure clear understanding by all. Specifically, list what will not be provided, especially if the customer initially requested it, or if there are deliverables normally associated with this type of service that you are not in a position to provide (e.g., sandwiches are prepared without condiments; customer must provide his own). • Organizational Responsibilities—How does the organization delivering the product or service promise to behave? Will you provide technical assistance? Will you have a help desk? Will you honor returns? Will you pay for the return shipping costs on items the customers decides they don’t want? Are you expected to stay on budget and on time? And how will you communicate with the
156
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
customer about necessary changes to the service or the agreement? • Customer Responsibilities—Yes, customers of services have responsibilities too, such as training themselves to efficiently use the services; giving the service provider sufficient notice of when their newly hired staff will need training; reporting problems to the service provider within a specified interval of time from detection of problem; etc. This is especially true when dealing with internal customers. • Performance Measures—Such as response time performance; availability performance; maintenance performance; etc. As we will see in the chapter on Metrics, a service level agreement sets the parameters of what matters most to the customer and/or the service provider. If the service is to be available between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., M–F, then availability performance may be a critical metric, and all minutes that the service is unavailable during those times should be logged and (perhaps) deducted from customer service charges. • Success Measures—Rather than merely understanding how you will measure the delivery of the service, focus on how you will measure the success of the service. This must tie directly back to the documented purpose of the service. If the service is intended to ensure the customer is safe (a home security service), how secure is the customer? Not how fast your response time is or how quickly you fix problems, but how safe is the customer? For example, one measure could be the number of thwarted attacks upon the customer. The bottom line is a simple one. A service level agreement does not have to be convoluted or complicated or 50-pages long. It doesn’t need to have tons of data points and signatures attesting to the agreements within. The SLA has to simply be effective as a communication tool between the customer and the service provider, clearly conveying what is expected (in both directions) and what is being promised (in both directions). If clarity is your goal, avoid legalese and jargon (lawyers won’t appreciate this suggestion because a good dose of legalese may help if there should be any future liability issues), which do nothing for communication. If you have the opportunity to create an SLA with only one unit as the service provider, you may be able to accomplish this ahead of the whole enterprise rising above Organizational Immaturity.
SETTING AND MAINTAINING EXPECTATIONS: SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS
157
Beware, though: the customer may expect the same from other units and create an untenable situation for your Champion. If the other units can’t, or won’t, work with a service level agreement, the Champion may be overwhelmed by ill sentiment. Leadership may even require that the Champion cease and desist because the company is made to “look bad.” Yes, it smacks of the (negative) “union mentality” that has been known to lead workers to force a new hire to “slow down” and not to work as hard because it makes the rest of the workers “look bad,” but what can you expect from an immature organization?
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 18
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
You know you’re in an immature organization when the quality of the company’s products and services are only measured by the profit margin.
It’s worthwhile to define quality, at least anecdotally, before we go further—not because it’s a complex concept, but because it is so simple that people become confused about what it means to the organization, to a particular unit, and to the customer. Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. Henry Ford (American industrialist and pioneer of the assembly-line production method, 1863–1947)
Quality is not an act, it is a habit. Aristotle (Ancient Greek philosopher, scientist, and physician, 384 BC–322 BC)
Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort. John Ruskin (English writer and critic of art, architecture, and society, 1819–1900)
Quality has to be caused, not controlled. Philip Crosby (American businessman, author, and entrepreneur—a quality guru, 1926–2001)
160
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Quality has to be built in; you can’t add it later. Unknown
All of these are great quotes. You may even have an orator in your organization who spouts equally impressive phrases. But quality is more than a catchphrase. Quality doesn’t only mean how well made the product is, but it also includes issues of safety, forethought, and convenience. It includes the entirety of the customer experience. If our deliverable is a product—let’s say a coffee mug—every aspect of the customer experience is involved. From the buying experience (how polite were the sales staff? How easy was it to order? Was the lighting adequate in the store?), to the packaging (are the staples used to hold the box together exposed? Is the box sturdy enough to keep the cup from breaking if dropped?), to the use of the product (does it keep the hot stuff hot? Is it ergonomically designed?). The entire experience offers numerous opportunities for designing quality in. In many organizations, we find that quality is an afterthought. The organization, if concerned at all with quality, works to put it in after the process has been completed. By this we mean the organization has a control mechanism in place to test for quality after the product is manufactured or the service delivered. While this ultimately proves inadequate, it’s more than some immature organizations can do. In an immature organization, it’s likely that there are no policies, structures, nor procedures in place that support quality. In short, quality is a concern, but generating income is the driver. The problem with this viewpoint is the organization has neither a vision of the future nor an understanding of how customers will react. Will customers tell others about the low quality they received, and eventually drive your company out of business? Word-of-mouth is a great means of advertising or a great way to destroy a product line. Such organizations will be overcome by any other organization that consistently produces a higher quality deliverable. The normal progression can be seen in two views—how quality is defined, and how it is measured. How quality is defined—the phases of growth for how we focus on quality moves along a continuum from only looking at the end product to looking at the entire experience of the customer and those responsible for delivering the product or service.
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
161
Defined
Phases of Growth—as defined by Quality Focus Quality only defined by end product
Quality defined by customer experience
Quality defined by total product
Quality defined by customer & employee experience
1. At the lowest level of maturity, the first phase, quality is only defined by the end product. Can we comfortably offer a lifetime warranty? Not by any of the processes or interim deliverables. 2. Later, as we mature, quality is defined by the product, the packaging, and the documentation that accompanies the product. Still the end product, but the end product is seen as a more comprehensive item. The box and documentation are included in the definition of the product—not just the coffee mug. 3. Much later, quality is defined by the customer experience—the entire experience, from entering the store (or visiting the Web site) to customer service and technical support. Quality includes the entire experience—we no longer “sell a product,” we provide a service. Even if you manufacture and ship your goods to a store for distribution, you can’t divorce the store experience from the quality of your product. You get to choose the outlets you allow to carry your products. If you sell via a Web site, the Web site is part of the quality of your deliverable. 4. The final phase of maturity is reached when quality is defined by the customer and employee experiences. This expands the scope of quality to not only include our customers, but our workforce. This includes safety concerns, stewardship of resources, and employee involvement.
Measured
The second way we can view the normal progression of an organization toward maturity (in relation to quality) is through how quality is measured. These phases of growth, like those for defining quality, travel along a linear progression from measuring quantity (not quality) to measuring quality continuously.
Quantity— not Quality
Quality measured after delivery
Auditing Quality
Measure Quality at focal points
Quality is a goal measured continuously
162
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
1. The first phase finds us measuring quantity instead of quality. How many did we produce? No concern to quality—quantity and the sale are all that matters. 2. The second phase sees the organization actually trying to measure the quality of the product or service, but it is only measured after the delivery (customer satisfaction surveys). This is not a bad thing. It’s just not complete. 3. In the third phase of growth, we find quality is audited and tested after the process of production or service delivery is complete. This does little to help us identify problems before they become defects in the final deliverable. Our goal should be to ensure a high quality throughout. 4. In the fourth phase, quality is seen as part of the process and is measured at focus points. This is a great achievement and most organizations that reach this phase are exemplary. 5. The final phase is more of an attitude or cultural shift. In this phase, quality is seen as the goal of the process and is measured continuously. The two viewpoints we can take—“how we define” and “how we measure” quality—can be discussed in phases of growth that occur in parallel.
Defined
Quality only defined by end product
Measured
Phases of Growth—as defined by Quality Focus
Quantity— not Quality
Quality defined by total product Quality measured after delivery
Quality defined by customer experience Auditing Quality
Measure Quality at focal points
Quality defined by customer & employee experience Quality is a goal measured continuously
When viewed together, we can see how the focus on quality logically moves from left to right, in tandem. How we measure quality is logically dependent on how we define it. As with most improvement efforts, it is not a simple thing to move from one phase to the next on either level (definition or measurement). A leader cannot simply demand that an organization concerned only with sales or with the product start focusing on the most mature views of quality. This, like most issues of maturity, requires
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
163
a fundamental change in the way the organization thinks, believes, and ultimately behaves. And because normally this will involve the participation of multiple units within the organization, it is a poor candidate for early adoption by our champion methodology. You would have to find Champions of this particular cause in each of the units involved. Immature organizations address this difficulty by forming independent quality assurance (QA) offices within their organization. These autonomous (they normally report directly to the CEO) units are charged with defining and measuring quality throughout the organization. They are the auditors of quality and usually end up becoming the “process police.” This is an example of the mandate-change mentality that has proven unsuccessful in most cases. The QA office becomes the “enemy” of the other units and, rather than create a culture of quality, it generates conflict, animosity, and distrust. The goal isn’t to simply make our products and services of a high quality, the goal has to be to get the organizational culture to embrace quality. The organization has to be focused on being the best if it ever wants to become great. A core value of the U.S. Air Force is expressed in the mantra “excellence in all we do.” This gives license to the organization’s members to demand quality in everything, at all times. Of course, the phrase in itself has no power, but the sincere belief of the members to “live it” makes it a quality assurance policy of note. What makes it work may be that there is no QA office in charge of assuring that it does. Every member of the Air Force is empowered to not only live it but to also expect and demand it from every other member. It functions better than any audit that samples end products for compliance. It allows the organization to have pride in all its functions, not just its products. Let’s look at each of the maturation processes (definition and measurement of quality) in combination throughout the phases of growth. PHASE 1 Defined—only defined by end product Measured—quantity over quality—productivity and the sale is all that matters One area we’ve seen this in recently is customer service. In organizations where the primary job is to provide customer service, it would seem ridiculous to ignore the quality of the offering. But lately, it seems American businesses have lost the thread of this reality. More and more we see examples of poor customer service and the only measure
164
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
of success is the immediate sale of goods. This portends a very dark and dismal future. Smart investor-analysts can tell that this kind of behavior foretells the demise of otherwise successful companies. It may be hard to believe, but there are still companies that function this way, albeit we hope not for long. We have seen this also in companies that subcontract work. The sales force represents the parent company and works on a commission basis. They are unconcerned about the quality of the product or service and are far removed from that part of the business. After the sale is made, you, the customer, are visited by the contractor who may or may not deliver a quality service. And when you have issues with the lack of quality, the salesperson is nowhere to be found, while the parent company does its best to divorce itself from the event. These companies run a grave risk of creating word-of-mouth dissatisfaction. The number of people telling others that they are thieves or con artists will eventually (again, we hope) kill the business. This is the way of survival for all departments, even ones that provide an internal service. These departments will quickly realize that quality is important or end up being outsourced. PHASE 1 (CONTINUED) Defined—only defined by end product Measured—quality is measured only after delivery by receipt of customer satisfaction surveys If you wait until you’ve delivered on the product to measure its quality, it may be too late to “fix” the problems or your reputation. Although this may seem obviously inadequate, it’s still the most common form of quality assurance. This is because it is the easiest and least expensive means of assurance, at least on the surface. In truth, doing anything short of measuring constantly wastes resources, but we’ll prove that as we go through each phase. By trying to assure quality by measuring it after the delivery, we end up only measuring the customer’s perception—and not all customers’ perceptions. Usually only the most unhappy (or downright angry) customers respond to surveys on a regular basis. Another issue is the time that it will take to actually improve the quality. If the complaints are valid (when people provide criticism via a survey, their perception is normally biased and not fully accurate), it still takes an inordinate amount of time for that information to be disseminated to the proper level within the organization to affect a change.
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
165
Another problem is that because the feedback is primarily negative, staff or junior managers collecting the feedback don’t always appreciate its value. Some people mask criticisms by bunching them together and reporting them in broader categories so none of it seems so harsh. By the time the feedback actually gets to someone who might be able to change the quality of the offering, it is unrecognizable. Even if the information is timely, many times it is not useful for improving the quality of the product or service. This is due to the definition phase—because quality is seen as only having to do with the product, the feedback is seen as useless. Feedback either addresses something that is seen as too hard to change (packaging, vendors or distributors, or the essence of the product itself), or something that is not part of the actual manufacture or delivery (“it’s a design problem,” or “the sales person probably promised too much”). Another type of feedback, the “John Smith is the best sales rep I’ve ever seen” is nice, and the organization may even pass this accolade on to John, but it ends up being dismissed, lost in translation, lost as a useful tool for improvement. The organization rarely studies what makes John so successful, or asks him to help make the other sales reps as good as he is. PHASE 2 Defined—quality is defined by the total product Measured—quality is measured by auditing (and testing) after the production or delivery After reading about the problems with the previous phase of quality assurance maturation, the issues with this phase should be easy to recognize. This is an improvement over only using the customer survey. If the auditing and testing processes are designed to identify quality issues with the actual way products are manufactured or with how the services are designed and delivered, this can be a valuable tool. In each phase, we are not advocating abandoning the initial attempts at measuring quality. Each new phase should be combined with the previous to help build toward the big picture and a continuous improvement attitude. The objectivity of the audit and test processes avoids the bias and perception problems that occur when we only ask customers their opinion. With a well-planned audit and test plan, organizations can identify quality problems and sometimes stop delivery of low-quality
166
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
offerings before they reach the customer’s door. The major problem with this is that it is not normally comprehensive. Typically, the organization only performs samplings. If the audit or test is not well designed, it will miss essential quality issues; basically, it can only identify quality problems in what’s audited or tested. For example, if the deliverable is fresh blood for the Red Cross blood supply, it isn’t enough to sample a few donors by asking them health questions— every donor must be asked the same questions. If the deliverable is a handheld radio, then that product must have a way to at least tune into stations and adjust volume. Is it enough to make sure a sampling of finished radios work before they are shipped, or do the control buttons (or sliders or wheels, etc.) need to each be pushed (slid, turned, twisted, cranked, etc.) 500 times to ensure they are sufficiently robust for any customer’s hands? Unless an organization tests the entire process or every facet of the offering, it runs the risk of missing quality defects. Another problem with this type of identification is how the information is gathered and then reported. Because it is normally done by a third party to ensure objectivity, the findings are commonly provided to upper management. This information runs the same distillation risks as survey data. If staff or management thinks the results are too negative, they may keep some of this information from the people above who could make changes. Even if the information is shared with the people who could change the process, it normally flows from upper management, down through each level of management, before it finally reaches the person who carries out the process. Along the way, the information is filtered (this is a bad thing), and then someone decides on how to “fix” the problem and makes changes to the way business is done. Even though this may occasionally work out well, the risk is that management is making decisions in isolation from the process doers. Rarely are audit or test findings quickly disseminated to the people who could benefit most from them. And because of this filtering process, the doers don’t view the audit or test as a tool they welcome. It becomes a means of making the doer look bad to management. It becomes a feared event. If the measure of quality becomes a negative event for the worker, the actual audit or test process becomes the enemy of the workforce instead of a tool they want to use. Much like the case of customer surveys, when the quality assurance measure is viewed as an enemy of the workforce, the workers will (overtly or covertly) not assist in the collection, reporting, or improvement effort. This type of assurance also tends to become more of a blame game and the whole purpose of improving quality is many times lost.
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
167
The good news? If you can manage to get the results to the line immediately (allow everyone—management and workers—to see the results at the same time), and your management allows the workforce to address the issues without micromanagement, OK. But if all of these things were already working smoothly, you wouldn’t be reading this chapter. At least at this phase you’re looking at the total product, but you’ll want to be very aware of any upward or downward filtering of test results. PHASE 2 CONTINUED Defined—quality is defined by the total product Measured—quality is measured at key focal points As we progress, quality is moved from just the product to looking at the process used in production; we measure it at key focus points. You may intuitively see that it would be fantastic if the organization could skip to the end of the continuum and measure quality continuously and have it defined by the entire experience by all stakeholders. But as we’ve stressed throughout, organizations, like other complex living organisms, grow at their own rate. Chances are your organization has gone or will go through these phases. We want you to be able to identify where you are currently, acknowledge where you want to get to, and patiently and persistently move toward maturity (you can see why quality is among the list of advanced behaviors). One of the reasons growth takes time is that management finds it hard to see the benefits of internal improvement efforts. Unlike a new advertising campaign or acquiring a new piece of manufacturing machinery, the perception tends to be that internal improvements won’t show a return on investment. If there is no quality assurance function in place, management will not want to invest the resources necessary unless forced to by loss of customers. These are poor reasons to go through the phases, but the more immature the organization, the more likely that the maturation process will be a slow one. When the quality assurance effort is designed to be part of the process of delivery, the success rate will increase exponentially. By instilling quality assurance within the process, the people who actually perform the processes, and actually have control over the validity of the measures, will have the responsibility to: a. identify defects or potential quality detractors b. determine what is at the root cause of the issue
168
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
c. devise changes to the process to eliminate the issues d. change the process to improve the quality Notice that the key word is responsibility, not power. The workers own the process; they don’t control it. If you own it, you don’t need power over it. Management still receives a report in this scenario, but the report includes the changes made to create improvements. It becomes a success story instead of a report card. Why would management want to receive a report card to only have to turn around and ask the workforce why they are failing? Why create an atmosphere of antagonism? Even though management may have ideas about how to improve a process, the best input will come from those living the process every day. Management should be engaged when resources need to be realigned or obtained. The workforce, depending on the criticality and difficulty of the change, may engage management for advice or even to decide between multiple options. The bottom line is that ownership for the quality of a process is in the hands of those who carry out the process, not management. When quality assurance becomes a tool for the process owner to improve the way things are done, it will start to function as an assurance mechanism and not a report card. PHASE 3 Defined—quality is defined by the customer experience Measured—quality is measured at key focal points The first way to improve on the previous phase of quality assurance is to change our focus from the product to the customer experience. When we measure quality at focal points along a process, the first choice to make is which process do we measure against? Usually the first step is to measure along the manufacturing process. Later this may be expanded to include measuring the distribution and shipping process. When we look at the customer experience, we have to measure from concept to design to development to production to distribution and shipping and finally to maintenance. It isn’t enough to get the product into the customer’s hands. We have to measure the quality of the support after we’ve closed the sale and delivered the product or service. The number of processes grows rapidly when we include the entire lifecycle for the product/service.
IT’S TIME TO OWN UP: WHAT IS QUALITY AND WHY MEASURE IT?
169
By changing our focus, we can see how all of the phases we’ve traveled so far can be used to build a complete picture. We’ll need feedback on the product, on the packaging, on the buying experience, and on the support and warranties. PHASE 3 CONTINUED Defined—quality is defined by the customer experience Measured—quality is seen as the goal of the process and is measured continuously When the entire customer’s experience is the focus and workers have the ability to measure the outcomes as they happen, the organization has enormous capability toward assuring quality. The key is to shift the goal from looking at quantity to quality—a measure which includes quantity as a subset. When the Air Force value of “excellence in all we do” is followed, it’s not exclusive of any of the measures. Quantity is seen as just one facet of excellence, like all other descriptors of the product. Is it clean? Is it the right size, the right shape, or the right color? Is it right? PHASE 4 Defined—quality is defined by the customer and employee experience Measured—quality is seen as the goal of the process and is measured continuously. This last phase changes the organization’s definition of quality from one defined exclusively by the customer’s experience to include the employee’s experience. We (the organization) serve more than the customer, and the quality of the work experience should be at least as good as the customer’s experience. Although the necessary involvement of multiple (if not all) units within the organization makes this advanced behavior impossible for an immature organization, another factor that makes it untenable is the use of measures. Metrics may be the single most risky improvement area in organizational development.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 19
METRICS: AN ORGANIZATION’S MATURITY BAROMETER
You know you’re in an immature organization when metrics are dutifully collected, analyzed, and reported, but no one knows why and the final recipient doesn’t use them. Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers. Anthony Robbins (American advisor to leaders)
The more immature an organization, the more dangerous metrics can be. Us, the Authors
Measuring quality (previous chapter) was a specific instance of a metric. Implementing a metrics program by definition will entail organization-wide involvement, and therefore it will be impossible for an immature organization. So why not do it at the unit level? Why is this an advanced behavior? Metrics is in the “don’t do this until your organization is mature” section of the book because of the substantial risk involved. In addition to the specific risks discussed in detail within this chapter, there is also the simple and real risk that leadership, seeing a successful use of measures in a unit, will demand the same of everyone else. Leadership loves data. In immature organizations leadership will rarely allow only one Champion to collect,
172
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
analyze, and report metrics; it will demand it of others, who are not nearly ready for it. Implementing an effective metrics program in an immature organization is impossible. Attempting to implement a metrics program in a maturing organization can quickly halt all progress or, worse, move the organization backward. Basically, if we could, we’d put a very large radioactive symbol on this chapter. If we’ve scared you away, good. If not, you’ll need to know as much as possible and hopefully the specific risks described later in this chapter will do the trick (of scaring you away). A large part of understanding metrics, and using them properly, is understanding “why.” Why we may want to report them up the chain of command, why management asks to see metrics from below, and why we collect metrics for ourselves. When we show metrics or data, the most common response is for the recipient to try to solve our problems—even if none exist. If we don’t have explicit reasons for showing metrics and if we do not control the event (the way in which the metrics are shown), management will ask pointed questions, building their self-esteem, and then they will attempt to solve our problems, increasing their feelings of selfworth. This isn’t their fault. When we lose control of the event, management assumes that the reason we are showing data is to get their input on how to solve problems, how to fix something. The only way to combat this tendency is to know why we are showing the metrics and keep the interaction focused. WHY REPORT METRICS UP THE CHAIN? Why in the world would we want to voluntarily show metrics, let alone data, to our bosses? Definitely not to have them try to solve our problems. That’s our job and, at worst, if we need their help, we want to ask for what we think is needed, not just present the problem. So, under what circumstances, would we want to report metrics to our bosses? To Inform We show data to our bosses so that they can be more aware. This path is fraught with danger, because most managers have a hard time seeing data without reacting. If we truly want to make our boss aware of something, and that is our only intent, we need to make sure that what we show her has no chance of being construed as a problem.
METRICS: AN ORGANIZATION’S MATURITY BAROMETER
173
To Gain Support This is the best and in most cases the only reason to show metrics to our boss. This includes selling our management on a need, to gain resources, or to get a decision. These all really tie together. Once we’ve identified a problem and determined a solution, we go to management to get approval. With that approval comes the allocation of necessary resources. To get management to give us the resources and approve our solution, we have to sell them on the benefits. It’s important for you to have already solved the problem and be proposing a solution. The only decision you should seek from management is a go or no-go for your proposal. You do not want management coming up with solutions to problems. Their job is to manage resources, not solve your operational problems. WHY MANAGEMENT ASKS TO SEE METRICS FROM BELOW The reasons our boss should want to see metrics are corollaries to the reasons we should want to show them. Unfortunately, the usual reason workers assume they’re being asked for a metric is because the boss doesn’t trust them in some way. But from the boss’s point of view, lack of information is the driving factor—they just want visibility into the organization’s functioning. Some bosses want continual visibility, while others are satisfied with occasional “spot checks.” New managers especially feel like they need more information to better understand the business and better manage resources. What are the main reasons management asks to see metrics? To Make a Decision Again, when a new manager comes on board, many times she will ask for supporting data before making any critical decisions. Although there is a lot to be said for the kind of intuition that develops with experience, working with data is a helpful way to build support and gain credibility. To Trust Lower Levels As we said earlier, one risk when management asks for data occurs when the request is vague or not accompanied by an explanation. This risk can be mitigated through clear communication and strict adherence to proper rules for how to use (and not use) metrics, which we’ll cover shortly. If the manager truly does not trust her direct report,
174
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
well, there are other problems, problems which cannot be solved with metrics. The issue of trust is worthy of a whole thread of its own and is a great indicator of Organizational Maturity or Immaturity. A COMMON LANGUAGE For our purposes, data, measures, information, and metrics are distinctly different. Data is the lowest level and represents points in time. For example: 5, “small,” or 3.54. By themselves they are meaningless. Even with a little more definition, they still fall short of being useful—like number of employees or number of calls. Measures begin to move us to a more meaningful level, but by themselves still lack clarity of worth. Examples would include number of trained employees, number of calls per hour, or number of cases closed by employee. These even sound more meaningful, but they actually don’t help us accomplish anything. Information finally starts to provide enough perspective so that we can see some meaning, such as number of calls for each hour compared to number of workers on the shift, or average length of time to close a trouble case, grouped by type. Unfortunately, we often stop in our development of the metric at this information level. We think this is clear and that it tells us what we want to know. We think if we provide “information” to management or to our customers, they’ll see what we see. This is not true. To tell it correctly, we have to tell the whole story, provide the description along with the picture. Metrics fulfill the promise of data, measures, and information. A metric by our definition provides the picture and the prose to tell the entire story. It does not only present a graph or a chart, but also the explanation of the analysis of the information. Average number of open cases from 1999–2002 manning 225
Max manning
200 175 150 125 100 50
Min manning
25
ov De c Ja n Fe M b ar ch Ap ril M ay Ju ne Ju ly
N
p
ct O
Se
Au
g
0
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 0
open cases manning
METRICS: AN ORGANIZATION’S MATURITY BAROMETER
175
Explanation: The staffing over the fiscal year was not in line with the number of trouble calls received based on data collected over the last three years (not shown here). Result: We are realigning our staffing for the coming year to more closely match the average level of need each month. METRICS AS A TREE (HUG A TREE TODAY) To best utilize the concept of storytelling, metrics require a level of structure and rigor. Each metric must be well planned and designed with the end in mind. By paying up front, we ensure that we don’t waste time, money, or goodwill collecting the wrong data to create the wrong metric. The approach we recommend can be described, as most good ideas can, by observing nature. When we look at a mighty oak, we see a massive tree, with leaves and branches providing shade and comfort. Think of this tree as a metric. Data are analogous to the leaves on the tree. Numerous and abundant, they are interesting to look at, easy to get, and serve a purpose; but by themselves are not very useful and will not survive once they are removed from the branches. The smallest and thinnest branches, connecting the leaves to the tree, are measures—a little stronger, but still not the essence of the tree. They provide an essential connection point between the leaf and the tree (between data and the metric). These twigs are not substantial or robust enough to be considered “wood.” You need the thicker inner branches, the limbs, before you can build. These limbs, the kind we like to hang tires from, are information. They are useful at times in themselves, but if separated from the tree, they stop growing (and die), and are good only for specific uses. Information without a connection to the trunk will fail to reach its potential. The trunk of the tree, where you can determine the age of the tree, the strength of the tree, represents our metric—a complete picture telling a complete story. The metric is made up of many pieces of information, derived from many measures and data. This is the essence of the tree. Even so, the largest, strongest tree will wither and die without roots. The roots of our tree are the root questions the metric is designed to answer. And like a tree, the root (question) is the most important part. They define where the tree will live, how strong it will be, and if it will survive the harsh winter. The roots are born of the original seed (need) and spread out, providing a life-giving foundation for the tree. Even if you cut down the tree, the roots will continue to spawn
176
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
new growth. Unless the root question is no longer necessary (the tree is uprooted), the whole tree will continue to need its data, measures, information, and metrics to affirm the intention of the root. All metrics in a maturing, growing organization should tell a complete story in answer to a well-formulated root question. This ensures that the metric and the supporting information, measures, and data are designed to answer a known question. Don’t settle for leaves or twigs; if you’re going to build a lasting structure, you’ll need the whole tree. Examples of poor questions are easy to find. • “What is the availability of e-mail?” • It can be made better by making it more specific. Did we want to know the availability only at the present time or over a period of time? • “What was the availability of e-mail for the last calendar year?” • On hearing this question, you should be suspicious. You should want to know “why.” By knowing why the question is being asked, you can hopefully provide the proper answers rather than spend a lot of time answering the wrong question. • “What was the availability of e-mail for the last calendar year, because I want to see if there’s a problem with e-mail.” • Funny, how knowing what the reasons are can then enable us to understand what the proper question should be. Unfortunately, looking at availability may not tell the whole story. Management needs to get used to asking what they really want to know, and trusting their staff to give them the answer with data as support. The questioning could easily go on in this scenario and the answers (questions) from management would change to: • “I want to know if there is a problem with e-mail.” • “I want to know if there is a problem with any of our services we provide.” • “I want to improve our delivery of services.” • “I want our customers to be happy with our services.”
METRICS: AN ORGANIZATION’S MATURITY BAROMETER
177
Notice how we changed from asking for specific data to measures, to information, and now the management is expressing a need. Management should not be asking for information because that takes the staff out of the equation.The issue should be placed on the table, and the staff given the opportunity to answer the need as they see fit. In this case, there are many measures and information necessary to find out if the customers are happy and if not, why not. Then we’d know better what to measure.
Most organizations do not have the resources (time, manpower, or funds) to partake in a metrics effort without a predetermined purpose. If we chase “interesting” data, we can collect measures nonstop, 24/7, for years, and never answer the real questions the organization has. We can collect information and not have a result useful for improvement or decision-making because we’ve become overburdened and confused by all the information. And imagine the waste of vital resources should management ask for 300 pieces of data and then treat them like 300 pieces of a picture puzzle for which they have no answer key to guide them. If the 300 pieces actually come from 20 different puzzle boxes, either management will never obtain a result, or worse, a decision will be made on the basis of the disparate data, and the outcome will be horribly wrong. To aid in the process of properly building our tree from the roots up, rather than picking data leaves off the ground trying to create a tree, we use an implementation guide (see appendix 3). This simple template allows us to focus our creative energies on the root need and build outward to complete the tree. THE POWER OF METRICS (AND ITS ACCOMPANYING DANGERS) Success Key 1: if you don’t know the purpose of the metric, don’t collect it. Success Key 2: if you don’t know why you’re collecting or reporting a metric, stop.
Chasing data is an ailment that many managers (particularly inexperienced managers) suffer from. The symptoms are easy to spot.
178
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
The manager will normally verbalize one or more of the following: “I think it would be interesting to see . . .” “Wow, it would be neat to see that . . .” “What other data can you get?” And our favorite: “I’ll know it when I see it . . .” Chasing data is a bad thing. It creates distrust and wastes effort. It can lead your organization down a wrong path. Success Key 3: Don’t chase data. Stop. Go back and determine the question.
Metrics can be a powerful tool for communication and planning. A well-thought-out metric can provide valuable insight to processes, goal attainment, and what the future may hold. Metrics can be used to determine the health of an organization and if the products and services the organization provide are the right ones. Metrics can help leadership ensure they are doing the right things, the right way (preferably the first time). But metrics are only a tool, not an end. Therefore, there is only one proper response to a metric, only one correct reaction—investigate. The major reasons for developing a metric are to: • Measure progress (status) • Identify improvement opportunities • Predict the future While these are reasons for developing metrics, remember there are two reasons for sharing your metrics up the chain of command: • Provide insight to progress or process • Gain support Metrics can be a powerful tool. Not only can you derive valuable insight for your further investigations and decision making, but they can provide a high level of credibility with others. Metrics allow for more objective discussions and open communications. Metrics make you look smart. As Peter (“Spiderman”) Parker’s uncle said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Responsibility extends to
METRICS: AN ORGANIZATION’S MATURITY BAROMETER
179
those collecting the data for you, to those who could be adversely affected by metric-based decisions, as well as responsibility to your leadership. Another way to look at this responsibility is to examine the risks. Metrics (and more so data) are extremely easy to misuse. Bosses will solve (or attempt to solve) problems prematurely; you will make decisions without investigation; anyone can look at a metric and decide that it is the “whole truth” of the story. There is always more than one way to tell a story and more than one way to interpret it. Sometimes we misuse data because: (1) we don’t have enough experience with using metrics; (2) we don’t think we have time to investigate; or (3) we’ve been using metrics for so long that we’ve become complacent and miss the fact that things have changed. The bottom line is that there are many ways to misuse the metric, and this misuse will cause enormous damage to your organization. It will create a culture of distrust. It will push your workers to make your data inaccurate. It will create an atmosphere of secrecy and passive-aggressive behavior. Success Key 4: it’s not enough to ensure you don’t misuse data—you must convince everyone that you don’t misuse it.
The misuse of data can make all of your well-intentioned efforts worthless. Worse, it can make future communications, trust, and metrics difficult, if not impossible. There is much at risk here. If you don’t think you can ensure the proper use of the metrics, don’t even start designing them. Each step of the way, ensure you are being a good steward of the information you gather. Success Key 5: the only valid response to data (or metrics) is to investigate.
We’ve found that the misuse of data is much more prevalent than proper use of it. This is our biggest concern when working with customers on their metrics, and we’ve tried to combat this by strongly encouraging the customer to define, in advance, the use they intend for the metric. If decision making is the goal, then the full sharing of
180
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
the metric information can prepare staff to understand either the objective validity of the decision, or the amount of risk leadership is taking on by making the decision. This is in keeping with our philosophy that employees want to do the right thing and they also want to be part of something notable, a grand effort. Some decisions become obvious once the data is in, so there is no argument and no sense of fear among the employees. But when data indicates that change is necessary, yet does not point to the exact kind of change, then the sense of risk goes up. Employees aren’t deaf, dumb, and blind; they will sense risk if management tries to disguise it, and they will only tolerate being treated like mushrooms for brief periods before rumor mills and fear, uncertainty, and doubt take over. If the decision-making process points to risk, or a complex series of risks, management can only succeed by keeping and developing those people who want to take on the risk—yet another reason for ensuring that everyone understands why the metric is being collected and how it will (and won’t) be used. If we failed at scaring you away from the advanced behaviors (until your organization is well on its way out of Organizational Immaturity), tread carefully. If you miss a step around any Engagement Ring behaviors, the scope of the damage is small. As you progress through the book from Engagement Ring to mature behaviors, and finally to advanced behaviors, the scope widens and the risk increases—not only the risk of failure, but the risk of causing longterm damage to the organization’s maturation.
CHAPTER 20
THE FINAL COACHING SESSION
You know you’re in an immature organization, don’t you?
Since you’re reading this chapter, you have either skipped to the end to see what the summary has to say (hoping to save valuable time and energy) or you have worked your way through the previous chapters and find yourself at the conclusion. If you’re part of the first group, we’ll hopefully give you enough to make you go back and read the first section. If you’re part of the second group, congratulations! And thanks for sticking it out; we’ll hopefully reward you with a final summary worthy of your time. This whole book has been about your time. And your money. And your commitment. Our goal is to keep you from wasting any of those precious resources. We want you to be successful. WHO’S REALLY TO BLAME? As we have stated, to effectively create a change environment where an immature organization can grow, you can’t blame the usual suspects. If you truly want to overcome the issues involved with Organizational Immaturity, you’ll have to refrain from blaming anyone for your current state. Who’s really to blame? No one. If you feel you have to lay blame at someone’s feet, start at your own. You have to take responsibility and seek out Champions to
182
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
have a chance at making a difference. Of course, you could just wait for the organization to naturally mature, but the company could fail (or you retire) before then. Organizational Immaturity is an especially important concept because it defines a state of development that defies enterprise-wide change. Regardless of which improvement methodologies you select, your efforts will get bogged down and generally fail. Even hiring a team of consultants to come in and implement change will fail. Oh, it may look healthy as long as the consultant or the dictatorial leader is in place, but as soon as these controllers leave, the organization will revert to its previous state of immaturity. Sometimes, depending on the level of covert resistance, an organization can regress further into immaturity and become even more resistant to change. We’ve also seen organizations that realized they were immature, then “sword in hand” decided to undertake change. They didn’t use that terminology, but they at least knew they couldn’t succeed at a full-blown enterprise-level change. Actually, these organizations generally opted for baby steps. They decided to “do a little now” and worry about real, meaningful change later. They spent months and countless (they didn’t measure) resources on buying a software tool that would “make them better.” They formed a couple of teams or committees to address their top three issues (top three according to leadership or a committee). In this situation, though, action is the enemy of productivity. Time and again we’ve seen that after the smallest baby steps are achieved, the focus on improvement wanes and the organization gets back to its perceived “real” work. The organization goes back to dealing with day-to-day crises. The heroes and their followers take back the spotlight and life continues as before. This doesn’t have to be the way it happens. Meaningful, lasting change, even in an immature organization, can occur. But as with most cultural or psychological illnesses, the organization (or at least its change agents) must first admit it has a problem. The organization (even if it’s just one department or one unit) must realize it is addicted to heroes, to “crisis management,” and to maintaining the status quo. The organization must face its shortcomings and then be patient and persistent in its efforts to change. The symptoms are not new; these same ills have been identified by most organizational improvement methods. The difference is that they are possibly indicators of an inability to fix those same behaviors, at least at the enterprise level.
THE FINAL COACHING SESSION
183
SO? THEN WHAT? Baby steps don’t work. The concept of biting off only little tiny morsels so that eventually you end up eating the elephant doesn’t work. Although it’s an intriguing analogy (not sure eating an elephant is a good word-picture), even the analogy itself points out the inherent problems with baby steps. Chances are most of the elephant will rot before you get even a third of the way through or a multitude of scavengers will beat you to it. In other words, your organization will never finish the well-intentioned improvement projects it starts, or the naysayers in your organization will eat your lunch. Immediate, mandated, and massive change doesn’t work. It may appear shiny and new at first, but once the shock wears off and the organization finds ways to circumvent the controls, the false positives you get at first will reveal themselves as untrue. Any strides that actually occurred will likely be reversed and the organization may very well regress to a more immature state than where it began. Dictatorships only work as long as the totalitarian ruler is actively controlling the organization. As soon as the consultants leave or the dictatorial leader moves on to the next conquest, the organization will revert and possibly poison the next change effort. This is evident throughout history. Rulers and ruling classes come and go, but the poor (the masses) we have with us always. Cleaning house actually can work. If you could fire all of your current employees, managers, and leadership, the organization could start from scratch. We don’t mean the “rehire the people fired” concept (as some models propose), where each employee has to justify his position and reapply for his job—a great shock-value method. We mean truly starting over. You could create a new organization with a better culture, and thereby implement change. Of course, this is cheating: you haven’t “changed” the organization, you gave up and started over. The organization is not the name on the building; it’s the people who make up the complex living organism. By clearing out everyone and hiring all new people, someone is actually creating a new organization, not changing (or improving) the existing one. But hey, it could work. Champions. The simple formula we suggest is: (1) you care, and (2) you find others who care, others who have passion. Find those who believe already, even if they only believe in one of the behaviors in this book, and support them. Help them institute change within their small sphere of influence, and then propagate that change across the organization by “infecting” others with results and with
184
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
the sincere passion of a Champion. The good news about an immature organization is that normally there are tons of things to change, a veritable plethora of opportunities. Don’t try to attack all the problems at once. Don’t try to heal the entire organization at once. Pick a few things to do, with a few Champions who want to make specific improvements. Grow the organization from the bottom up, with the understanding, support, and patience of the top leadership. Change can happen, but it doesn’t happen in a flash of lightning. Change normally happens over time (a long time) with the help of some very special people. No matter how immature your organization is, you have some of those special people lurking somewhere (they’re probably currently looking for a new job, or venting frustrations in the lunch room). Don’t confuse the hero with a Champion. A Champion is not only passionate about one of the improvement behaviors listed, but is also passionate about making the organization better. If your Champion only wants to make his area better and refuses to share information, lessons learned, or processes with other units, he is actually a hero with a broader view. You need true Champions, people who you normally have to hold back from trying to make things organization-wide. The true Champion can’t understand why everyone doesn’t do things better or want to improve. They are eager to share and want to put the organization as a whole ahead of themselves. You will have to curtail their desire to get others to play. You will have to convince them of the “pockets of maturity” method for spreading improvements. Normally Champions are not the heroes who are happy with the status quo; they are normally frustrated by the inability of the organization to change. Between the frustrated potential-Champions in your midst and the new hires who come on board every so often, you have a core of people who can move the organization forward and rise above the barriers Organizational Immaturity imposes. They just need a push, a dare, a challenge. We are truly eager to help you avoid the pitfalls we have witnessed inside immature organizations. Find your Champions. Talk to them. Beware the false Champions and wanna-be dictators—those who profess passion around an improvement, but want to implement it everywhere except in their own corner of the world. Find out what your real Champions are interested in, what changes they want to make. Encourage them. Support them. Channel their passion and energy. Spend all your time with the Heck Yes’s and avoid wasting your time with the Heck No’s.
THE FINAL COACHING SESSION
185
So after a healthy read, our core message and call to action comes down to just three words: find your Champions. The dirty little secret is, the only way to successfully lead the Champions you find is to be a Champion yourself. Good luck, Champ!
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 1
SAMPLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
The use of the two following assessment tools will provide an “InnerView” of the organization’s maturity and health. This should be conducted annually. How you use these tools and how you share the results will be the first steps toward improvement. It can also be your first steps toward failure if you allow the results to be misused. IMMATURITY SELF ASSESSMENT Answer each question with a Yes, No, or Don’t Know. Answer only from the perspective, “I have knowledge that . . . ,” which means there may be a number of Don’t Know responses. 1. Processes essential to the maintenance of business (our core products and services) exist and have been documented. 2. Procedures for performing core processes exist and have been documented. 3. Process interdependencies, interactions, and handoffs have been documented (or mapped). 4. Process audits occur (not necessarily 100% of the time) to check that documented procedures are followed. 5. Process definitions for processes that cross departments/functional units have been documented. 6. Strategic plans have been documented for the whole organization.
188
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
7. Strategic plans have been documented for each department. 8. Regular reports are published regarding progress on strategic plans. 9. Department plans are used and results are regularly reported within your department and to senior management. 10. Organization-wide performance goals have been identified and documented. 11. Departmental/functional unit performance goals have been identified and documented. 12. You are very aware of the mission and vision for the organization. 13. A documented procedure exists for selecting team members to ensure that team composition will provide the knowledge and skills required. 14. A metrics program exists and has been documented and advertised/publicized. 15. Process and performance metrics are collected and reported to management. 16. Historical metrics are documented. 17. The function and purpose of currently reported metrics are identified. 18. Core services are documented. 19. Core services are aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. 20. A documented procedure exists for creating/developing training plans. 21. Training plans for each position in the organization have been documented. 22. Your training plan has been documented. 23. Training plans are used in conjunction with performance reviews, and training accomplishments are tracked against the plans. 24. A documented procedure exists for the professional development of personnel. 25. A documented process exists for understanding and managing career paths across functional areas. 26. A documented organizational process exists for conducting performance evaluations. 27. A documented organizational process exists for preventing defects (problems). 28. Performance evaluations are used to discuss worker satisfaction.
SAMPLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
189
29. Informal performance evaluations are conducted at least quarterly. 30. Performance evaluations are used to set expectations and goals. 31. A documented organizational reward/recognition system exists that allows for highlighting performance improvement. 32. A documented organizational process exists for the use of official communication channels. 33. Official communication channels are used. 34. Organizational responsibilities for all projects/services have been documented. 35. Responsibilities are identified for all tasks, action items, and deliverables. 36. A documented organizational process exists for identifying responsibilities and how members will be held accountable for performance. 37. You understand what is expected of you at work. 38. The materials and equipment necessary for your job have been documented. 39. You are provided the materials and equipment necessary for your job. 40. All members of the organization are committed to doing quality work. 41. There is an atmosphere of trust in your functional unit. 42. There is an atmosphere of trust across the organization. 43. There is continual encouragement from supervisors to grow and learn. 44. A documented organizational incentive program exists, which includes: a. Competitive performance-based salaries b. Attractive career development options c. Opportunities to develop leadership and entrepreneurship skills There may be a significant number of Don’t Knows because your organization has many different departments (possibly in a variety of geographic locations) that prevent visibility throughout the organization. Ninety or eighty percent Yes answers indicate a high level of maturity. Sixty to seventy percent Yes answers indicate both significant maturity, and the ability to continue growing. Forty to fifty percent Yes answers indicate significant immaturity, with real likelihood that grassroots improvement efforts conducted with Champions stand a good chance of further developing maturity. Below 40 per-
190
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
cent Yes answers reflects the need for multiple efforts over several years. No situation is hopeless; even an organization with 10 percent Yes answers can develop maturity, but the pockets may be small. Persistence in the face of immaturity will, if nothing else, develop a number of individuals (even enable them to transition to other, more mature, organizations). ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY The organizational health survey is meant to be used at least annually, depending on what organizational components are being evaluated. Directors, managers, and staff members should answer True or False to the following types of questions (add/customize these example questions for your environment; naturally, the more “Trues” the better.): 1. My supervisor/board regularly discusses my performance with me. 2. My supervisor/board sets clear expectations for my performance. 3. My supervisor/board keeps me well informed on subjects that will impact my work or the work of my group. 4. My supervisor keeps me well informed/I keep the board well informed on the progress the organization is making towards its goals and objectives. 5. My supervisor solicits and listens to my input on decisions that affect me or my work group. 6. My supervisor acknowledges problems in a timely manner. 7. My supervisor makes almost all decisions in a timely manner. 8. My supervisor requires that I account for what I have produced/delivered since my last performance evaluation. 9. My supervisor empowers me to identify and solve problems in the course of my project work. 10. My supervisor encourages me to dedicate a portion of my calendar to my own professional development (beyond any training necessary to do my current work). 11. My supervisor assigns work to me based on my recent professional development.
APPENDIX 2
TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING A POLICY FRAMEWORK
POLICY Policy Submittal/Renewal Form Develop your form so that you can easily capture the following information: 1. Submitter: The person responsible for the submission 2. Owner: Who is responsible in the long term? (Director or above) 3. Submission Date 4. Anticipated Lifespan 5. Review Cycle (usually annual) 6. Scope: Unit, Dept, or Org 7. Previous Approval Date You will also want to capture some more detailed information. It helps to use an electronic form that can expand to the size of the text entered. Give the submitter room on the form to provide you with answers to the following questions. 1. Affected Parties (Stakeholders—who is impacted by this policy? List by groupings such as marketing, sales, production, management, etc.)
192
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
2. Rationale (Purpose—why is the policy needed? What does the policy stop/create/change?) 3. Policy Statement (The actual verbiage for the policy. Try to only give the “Must” and “Shall” phrases; associated processes will be captured elsewhere) 4. Associated Policies (Interdependencies—what other policies (by title) exist that may duplicate or refer to this policy?) 5. Associated Standards (Interdependencies—what standards (by title) support or relate to this policy?) 6. Associated Process or Procedure (Process title and owner—steps necessary for adhering to this policy? Do not capture the process here) 7. Waiver (variance) Process (Are waivers allowed? If so, what are the rules for not following this policy?) Besides the information you’ve gathered, you’ll want to encourage the submitter to develop plans for the policy’s audit and enforcement. Have the submitter provide detailed answers to the following questions (allow the submitter to attach a separate document if necessary). 1. Audit Plan (How will the compliance to this policy be measured? How will it be reported? The audit plan should reflect how important/critical it is for the policy to be adhered to.) 2. Enforcement Plan (How will failure to comply with the policy be dealt with? Give your suggestions on how noncompliance should be dealt with.) 3. Sanctions (Consequences of noncompliance—part of the enforcement plan. This may be a progressive model of discipline or consequence.) Policy Routing Sheet (moving policies from draft to approval) Once you’ve cleaned up the draft of the policy (you can use the submittal form as the draft), you’ll need to route the policy through your leadership. This process is useful for other items that need vetting through your organization. By providing a question-driven form to capture information the submitter doesn’t have to read through a checklist and try to ensure he has included everything. Create a simple routing slip to capture the level of review necessary and what role they play. Is the level a reviewing authority or an approving authority? Ensure you include all levels of your organization necessary based on your organization’s structure.
TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING A POLICY FRAMEWORK
193
Attach the New Policy Proposal (submittal form) to the routing slip. You will want to include instructions for the reviewers and approvers of the policy. Make sure that you have a place to capture when each reviewer received it, reviewed it, and gave his or her final recommendation (approve or disapprove). The policy submittal form should be reviewed, at a minimum, for accuracy and completion. Each reviewer should have space to capture issues, questions, comments, and recommendations. For the few that will have approval authority, ensure you have a place for a signature and date for the final disposition (approved or disapproved). Once the policy is approved, it has to be published. You can use this same form to track the publication location, date, and office responsible for updating and maintaining the document. This routing sheet should be filed with the submittal form, and the official copy of the policy. STANDARDS Standard Submittal/Renewal Form The submittal and renewal form for a standard is very similar to one used for policies. Because a standard is basically a subpolicy, there shouldn’t be a lot of difference between the two. As with the policy, capture information on the submitter as well as the standard proposal. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Submitter: The person responsible for the submission Owner: Who is responsible in the long term? (Director or above) Submission Date Anticipated Lifespan Review Cycle (usually annual) Scope: Unit, Dept, or Org Previous Approval Date (if a renewal) As with the policy collect information on:
1. Affected Parties (Stakeholders—who is impacted by this standard? List by groupings such as marketing, sales, production, management, etc.) 2. Rationale (Purpose—why is the standard needed? What does the standard stop/create/change?)
194
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
3. Standard (The actual verbiage for the standard. Try to only give the Must and Shall phrases—associated processes will be captured elsewhere) Here is where the standard’s information differs from the policy definition. 1. Supported Policies. Because a standard is a subcomponent to a policy, a general rule of thumb is that you can’t have a standard without a policy for it to support. Include the policies this standard supports. 2. Associated Standards (standard title and owner). Because a single policy may spawn many standards, it is common for standards to interrelate. Capture any interdependencies or connections between standards here. 3. Associated Process or Procedure (Process title and owner—steps necessary for adhering to this standard? Do not capture the process here). The building block for a strong policy framework is actually the processes and procedures. Standards should provide guidance for the processes and therefore be able to show a direct relationship to them. 4. Consequences to Org (What is the risk to the unit, dept., and/or org. if this standard is not adhered to. Should align with the rationale given above.) 5. Waiver (variance) Process (Are waivers allowed? If so, what are the rules for not following this standard?) As with a policy, a standard should have an enforcement plan. 1. Audit Plan (How will the compliance to this standard be measured? How will it be reported? The audit plan should reflect how important/critical it is for the standard to be adhered to.) 2. Enforcement Plan (May be same as parent policy) 3. Sanctions (May be same as parent policy)
PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES Process Capture Template The most important part of the policy framework is the process and procedure definitions. Although management relies on the pol-
TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING A POLICY FRAMEWORK
195
icy and standards, the workforce needs the process definitions to become a highly functioning group. Processes are where improvements occur and savings are realized. With every process, there are housekeeping data that can help when referencing or using the process documentation. For each process it is useful to create, collect, and track the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Version Number Process Level Previous Version (if applicable) Date of the Process Definition Scope: Unit, department, or organization.
Beyond background information, you must capture the essence of the process and the major steps. Minor steps can be captured as subprocesses or procedures. Ensure you fully and clearly document the following: 1. Purpose (Why is this process necessary?) 2. Entry Criteria (Inputs required to start process) 3. Exit Criteria (How you know when the process has been accomplished) 4. Inputs (information needed for the process) 5. Deliverables (tangible products from the process) Some other essential information to allow a comprehensive capture of a process includes: 1. Key Players (Stakeholders, who is impacted or involved in the process) 2. Tools (Items used to carry out the process) 3. Associated Policies, Standards, and Processes (Interdependencies) 4. Background (Information on the history of the process) All of the information captured so far could be used as an executive summary of the process. The remaining six items are more detailed and the information can be very large. You’ll want to capture all of the information necessary to enable the worker to correctly and repeatedly carry out the process. This allows for compliance and later improvement.
196
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
1. Definitions (Definition of terms used within the process. May include roles and responsibilities of participants) 2. List of Procedure Steps (Outline of process steps) 3. Procedure Steps (Should be presented in a logical order. Expand to size needed) 4. Quality Assurance Plan (How will the processes be assessed, quality checked, and improved?) 5. Flow Chart/Swim Lane Chart (Graphical representation of the process) 6. Attachments (List of templates, forms, tools, etc., attached to this document) ASSESSMENTS Assessment of the Policy Framework The last part of the policy framework is usually neglected. If you have gone through the effort to create policies and standards, and have captured processes and procedures—all with an eye toward improving that way the organization runs—you will do yourself a disservice if you fail to measure the level to which the organization improves. • Determine area of ROI expected • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Quality • Insight/Visibility • Identify Measures of Success—examples follow: • Policy Compliance—level of compliance to a given policy • Amount of time it takes to follow a process (perform a function) • Amount of people it takes to perform a process • Reduction in rework • Improvements to processes and procedures as a result of repeatability • Develop Metric—See Develop a Metric process for specifics on how to go about developing a metric. Take a simplified approach as this assessment is more often going to be a short-term measure of success for the policy framework component. Some exceptions follow:
TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING A POLICY FRAMEWORK
197
• Effectiveness and efficiency of a process. It may benefit the organization to continue to collect this metric to track if future changes (tweaks) to the process are worth the effort and produce the expected results • Level of compliance to a policy and or standard. This will eventually be an auditable item and therefore could be removed from the focus of this area. Until Audit picks it up as an item, the owner may choose to continue to measure this. • Some Metrics which may be short term • Benefits of a tool. Once the tool has been proven to have an acceptable ROI, measurements may no longer be necessary • Level of compliance to a policy or standard • If a process is being followed—the level to which a process or procedure are being followed is useful until the process/procedure become instituted. The key to this component of the policy framework is to remember that it is designed to prove the overall ROI for using the policy framework. It can, and should, be used to assist in the improvement of the policy framework components. It is important to provide feedback to the owner about the benefits each piece of the framework is providing and to work to enhance the ROI.
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 3
METRICS IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE
STRUCTURE AND RIGOR—COMPONENTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE Metrics is a complicated (and dangerous) organizational improvement area to address. Besides all of the critical warnings we’ve offered, we highly recommend that you practice more structure and rigor than you may in any of your other improvement efforts. Document each metric thoroughly and clearly. This tool will help. The implementation guide is a simple tool designed to help in the planning, documentation, and implementation of a metric. The guide takes basic components of a metric and lays them out for completion. You can build your own using the description of the components. Executive Level Summary of the Metric As with most summaries, we recommend capturing this after the rest of the guide is completed. It should include a definition, summary (1–2 paragraphs), and history of the question and the answer (metric). Purpose This is the most important part of any metric. Why do you want the metric? What question are you trying to answer? Many times the
200
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
need can be satisfied more effectively or efficiently by another means than collecting, analyzing, and reporting. Sometimes it just requires the pedantic observation, and communication with, our employees. The purpose statement should include the information need that is driving the development of the metric. What is the root question? Why do we want to tell the story? What do we hope to achieve? Customer We have to know who the true customer is. Who needs the answers we’ll be able to provide? One of the most glaring errors we see is the habit of requesting a metric only to fail to or refuse to share the story with those who could most use the answer. For everyone in the organization who helped develop the root question, wouldn’t they gain some benefit from knowing the answers? You should, in fact, must, know how you plan on using the results, and this includes who you will and will not show the results to. There can be multiple customers. If you have people collecting the data, they should be one of the customers. It is unfair to have someone collect data to build a metric, and not let them see the results of their efforts. Graphical Representation This is a hard point to grasp for many designers. Rather than describe the data wanted, we want the customer to describe how they would like to view the story. By focusing on the data instead of a metric, we are focusing on the answer we want instead of the question we have. Obviously if we’re focused on the answer, we have built in biases on how to build the metric and what it should tell us. This creates a tainted and limited view. This leads to chasing data. The graphical representation is a guess at how the story should be told. A guess at what charts or graphs will be used to tell the story. This can be a trend, Pareto, benchmarking, bar, line, dashboard or other type of representation. Since it is just a guess, it can be hand drawn. Coming up with a possible pictorial representation is important. It keeps the metric designer from chasing data. Explanation A prose version of the story the metric tells. How to read the picture above. Remember this is only a guess. This is a good time (if you
METRICS IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE
201
didn’t do it in the purpose block) to identify how the metric will be used—and perhaps more importantly—how it will not be used. Schedule The schedule refers to large steps in the metric’s lifecycle. Will you start collecting at the beginning of the calendar year? Fiscal year? When will you make reports available? When will you stop collecting the metric? Did we surprise you with that last one? It is important to realize that a metric has a purpose. That purpose can change or be overcome by events. A metric is not “forever,” although there are probably measures that your organization currently collects (and maybe reports) that are no longer used by anyone. The purpose has passed, but alas, the effort continues. A metric should only live as long as needed. If the question changes, the metric changes. If the question is no longer being asked, you probably should stop answering it. Like any other effort which we do well, we are reluctant to move on. Put an expected lifespan here. Document how you’ll know when you can stop collecting and reporting this metric. Measures Used To Develop the Metric Only now should you start identifying the leaves and branches needed to provide essentials to the tree. Identify the specific data points to be collected and used to develop the metric. This should be the lowest level view of the data. Remember, this too can change. Collection Schema This is where the proverbial rubber finally meets the road. Until now, it’s been designing and planning. Now we will document the processes and procedures we’ll use to actually collect the data. Be as detailed as possible, this should be a guide for the collector to follow. Include who the collector is, where the data will come from (source), the frequency (how often should the data be collected/reported), and the how. Document the process for collecting the data. Note: it will help immeasurably if you can collect the data with as little human intervention as possible. Any time you can automate the collection process the better. Not only do you run the risk of human error (inherent in anything humans do), but you also have issues with bias—intentional and unintentional. The less intervention, the less
202
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
pain caused to your busy workforce. The less intervention, the less chance of human error in the collection. Analysis This deals with how to take the data and measures and build information, and how to take that information and develop a metric. This is where you take all the assumptions, constraints, and known flaws around the information, and incorporate it into the story. Document any formulas or mathematical equations needed. This is the first place you may want to enlist a statistician. Up until now, you’ve been thinking and working like a leader. Now it’s time to bring in a technical expert. Many times the data will tell you how to proceed. If we’ve done our job well and identified the root questions, built a picture, and then worked on the data required, we can now allow the data to dictate, to a degree, what we do next. Understanding the Story And just that quickly, we go back to being a leader. You will need to determine if there are any expected answers. Are there any goals or thresholds you already have for the metric? Note: Some good questions to ask, once you know the type of answers you may receive, are: What will you do if the answer is the best possible answer? What will you do if it is the worst? What will you do if it’s in the middle? The answer you give to these three innocent questions is extremely important and telling. If the customer already knows how they will respond, you may be wasting your time. Many times the answer is that they will do nothing, or worse, will do things so extreme that you may want to rethink giving them what they ask for. Threshold and Target Together, these determine the range of acceptability or expectation. Any results better than the threshold and below the target are acceptable. Any results below the threshold dictate further investigation to find out if the causes can be avoided or the processes improved. Any results above the target dictate further investigation to find out if the causes can be replicated or leveraged.
METRICS IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE
203
Lessons Learned Yes, we know. You don’t have time, it’s not productive, you’ll have someone else do it, and so on. The excuses for not documenting lessons learned are numerous and well practiced. We’ll try anyway, because as change agents, perseverance is one of our attributes. You must track what you’ve learned throughout the process, as you design the metric, and as you start collecting, building, and reporting it. As you begin to use it. You must document what you’ve learned so that you and others can benefit from the effort. If you don’t document your lessons learned, you are not getting your full money’s worth. Hopefully, by visiting this section of the implementation guide periodically, you won’t end up with a metric that outlives its usefulness, draining valuable resources past the need.
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 4
TRAINING PLANS
DEVELOP/MODIFY TRAINING PLANS Training plans are only valuable if they are used. The nomenclature is not an error; training should be planned. The basic components of the plan should reflect the training needs based on the tasks and skills to be performed, an evaluation of the worker’s abilities, sources for training, and a schedule for the training. Once the training has been accomplished, there should be a re-evaluation of the worker’s abilities to determine if further training is required. Every position in the organization can benefit from a training plan. Besides finding Champions and only working in those enclaves of maturity, you can also build training plans for new positions or positions that are currently vacant. To develop a training plan you will need: • • • • •
Master task listing Position descriptions Process definitions Work schedules Workflow diagrams
The execution of a training plan will help you develop the following deliverables: • Position task breakdown • Position training requirements
206
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
• Positional training plan What follows is a step-by-step process for developing a training plan. 1. Develop Master Task Listing by Position The master task listing (MTL) is the listing of all the kinds of tasks that are to be accomplished by the person filling the position. This is the basis of any training plan. It will be used to identify the minimum job tasks that, when trained, makes a person qualified to do the job. The basis of a good training plan is that all training is based on identified requirements and that all requirements are based on actual tasks. Although sources of training may, and frequently do, change, the requirement for the training usually does not. The MTL is a listing of the major tasks involved in carrying out the job of a specific position. In some cases, position descriptions (PD) contain both a list of the types of tasks to be performed and the requisite skills and skill levels. In other cases only skills and skill levels are mentioned, with the thought that the position title itself will be self-explanatory to knowledgeable job applicants. Even if there is an organization policy against listing tasks in a position description, the kinds of tasks need to be documented for developing training plans, and should therefore be kept in the same file with the PD. 1.1. Survey, Question, or Interview Personnel The personnel filling the position are surveyed, questioned, and interviewed to gain information (the person who accomplishes a task has the best feel for the requirements of that task, both in breadth and depth). Also query the supervisors. This will help validate the worker’s views and provide a list of tasks that are future requirements for the position. 1.2. Review Existing Documentation Review existing documentation that may help identify tasks by position. This would include the MTL for the position, position descriptions, work schedules, workflow diagrams, and process definitions. 2. Filter the List Look for tasks that are administrative in nature, or are universal nonposition tasks (a possible indicator is if a task is performed out-
TRAINING PLANS
207
side of, or throughout, the process lifecycle, such as requesting office supplies). These tasks should be removed from this listing because you are attempting to create a position-specific MTL. The data can be saved by the work center to be included in their documentation. 3. Produce Task Breakdowns The goal of this step is to break tasks down into the lowest level of task possible. At times this is too much. The best guidance to follow on how far to break down a task follows: a. List only the whats, not the hows b. If a new person filling the position could identify all the subtasks, that is low enough c. If the performance of a subtask is intuitive, do not list it (under “conducting a meeting,” do not list “attend meeting”) For example, accounts payable authorizes payment to creditors. It may be useful to add “after confirmation of invoice”; however it is not necessary to explain how the person will locate invoice confirmations. 4. Find Logical Groupings for Tasks Many times the tasks in the MTL can be grouped under a larger heading. This grouping is designed to equate to the type of course that fulfills the need. Many times minor tasks and subtasks are repeated in different processes. These commonalities are documented. If the commonalities occur in multiple areas, it indicates a possible new grouping. After grouping the tasks in a logical manner, the groupings are viewed in relationship to the lifecycle phases of their parent process. This can be accomplished through a table, shading in the phases where the tasks are performed. 5. Prioritize Tasks The tasks are prioritized in the order that they should be satisfied. The tasks that are the most important to be trained on are identified and the groupings arranged accordingly. The priority of the groupings may mirror the lifecycle phases of the process for which they are needed.
208
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
6. Define Training Requirements Using a table, list every major task identified and their breakdowns. Then for each task, determine the frequency of performance, complexity of task, complexity of learning the task, and the criticality. Each of these factors are rated low (L), medium (M), or high (H). a. Frequency • H = if you do the task daily • M = if you do the task weekly • L = if you do the task less frequently than weekly b. Complexity of task • H = Extremely difficult to explain • M = Difficult to explain • L = Easy to explain c. Complexity to learn • H = Requires background info, a lot of time and effort • M = Requires some info, and a decent amount of time/effort • L = Easy to learn, can teach myself in less than an hour d. Criticality • H = if the task must be done right the first time • M = if you can take 2–3 times to get it right • L = if you can take more than 3 tries to get it right Based on the ratings given to each task, it will be classified as a training requirement or not. The ratings will also assist in determining a recommended method of delivery for training each task. Training is required (Training Requirement = “Y”) if: a. the “complexity of the task” or the “complexity to learn” is high b. Both the “complexity of the task” and the “complexity to learn” are medium The task is a knowledge training item if the “complexity of the task” or the “complexity to learn” is high. Knowledge training items are tasks that are complex enough to require written documentation. It is not recommended to train as a hands-on-only training task. Tasks that are not determined to be a training requirement may still require job aids, or checklists, or other tools to help in the performance of the job, but they should not require formal/informal training.
TRAINING PLANS
209
7. Determine Delivery Method
N N N Y Y Y
H M H H L
Y Y Y
If Y
Objectives and Tests?
Thorough Instructions?
On-The-Job Training?
Y Y Y Y Y
L
Quality Check?
Checklist?
Knowledge Item?
L L M M
Training Requirements?
Complexity to Learn
L M L M H
Criticality
Complexity of Task
Frequency
The following list is a recommended minimum based on the ratings determined in the previous step. Use a check list on the job if “criticality” is medium or high. Checklists are enumerated lists of subtasks that must be done to complete the overall task. If there are dependencies, they should be identified (x has to be done before y). If the ordering of the subtasks is important, that should be identified. The best checklists will also identify if a subtask is optional or mandatory. Use a quality check if “criticality” is high.” A quality check is when you have someone check your work to ensure it is correct— not supervision, but a check, like having someone review a document before you send it out. Use on-the-job training (OJT) if the “complexity to learn” is low and it is a training requirement. OJT is another way of saying inhouse, informal, one-on-one training. It is not formal and does not indicate the use of printed material. It is hands-on training. Use written, thorough instructions if “frequency” is low and it is a training requirement. The task requires thorough documentation on how to perform the task. Use objectives and tests (formal training) if it is a training requirement and the “complexity to learn” is above low. This can be done in-house, tutored, or online. It can also be accomplished through the more traditional classroom environment.
Y
210
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
8. Develop Positional Training Plan The positional training plan (PTP) is developed from the MTL and other information gathered in building the MTL. Each functional area will have one MTL that may break out into multiple PTPs. Training requirements can be classified further if it makes planning easier. Some suggested classifications are job qualification tasks, professional development tasks, ancillary tasks, and additional training tasks. You will recall our earlier discussion differentiating job qualification tasks from professional development: always fund training first, until each person has achieved the skill levels required to be successful in the position; then and only then should funding for professional development be considered and potentially allocated. Professional development is any training that goes beyond the requirements of the current position, whether in depth of skills (perhaps for advancement to a higher level of a similar position) or breadth of skills (perhaps for changing one’s area of focus, such as from technical skills to management skills). A sample template for a training plan is attached. It was developed in a spreadsheet and includes a visual mapping of the skill level of each trainee. It also includes a way to track skill and knowledge level evaluations and goals. One sheet is for training evaluation; the other is for scheduling and tracking training received. The use of the template is explained in the process definition for “maintaining training plans.”
Skill Level Task
Training Schedule Project start date
Actual start date
Project end date
% Trained Actual end date
80%
Req’t
Now
Priority
Task 1
4
3
0
75%
Task 2
3
2
0
67%
Task 3
3
3
0
100%
Task 4
5
3.7
0
74%
Task 5
3
2.5
0
83%
Area 1
Skill Level Task
Knowledge?
For evaluating skill/knowledge level
Training Schedule Initial skill level
Title
Date Schedule
Date Complete
Source
Skill level after
% Trained
Priority
Area 1
For tracking status of training scheduled/received
#N/A
0
#N/A
0
#N/A
0
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 5
HOW TO WRITE A LIVING STRATEGIC PLAN
OK, so now you know what the components are, but how do you actually write the plan? Here is a synopsis of the major steps for creating the plan. You can use this as a checklist. Remember, this can be done at any level within a large organization, even at a personal level. STEPS TO CREATING YOUR PLAN 1. Know your organization—gather data a. Organizational information b. Review parent organization strategic plan if one exists c. Know what your customers expect/need d. Know the environment in which you work e. Find benchmarks when possible f. Review peers for strategic plan examples g. Identify organizational values 2. Write your mission statement a. It should explain the essential reason your organization exists to everyone who reads it b. It should be posted publicly - you want everyone to see it daily c. Use plain English d. Ensure it aligns with parent organization’s mission and/or vision. This will be easy, especially if the organization is
214
3.
4.
5.
6.
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
immature. If they have a mission and vision, it will be vague and almost anything you come up with will align beneath it Write your vision statement a. Where do you want to be in the next five to ten years? It is a forward-looking, highest-level “goal” b. As it is a goal, it has to meet all of the criteria for a good goal: achievable, measurable, comprehensive, and aligned c. It should be inspirational d. Use plain English e. Ensure it aligns with parent organization’s mission and/or vision Develop goals a. Create goals that help achieve the mission. Goals should be achievable, measurable, comprehensive, and aligned b. Use a clear verb c. Use the “5 whys” to ensure you have root goals and not objectives/action items d. Identify metrics for each goal e. Use plain English f. Ensure it aligns with your mission and/or vision Develop objectives a. These should be steps to achieving an identified goal. Remember, in the process of identifying goals, you may have actually identified a lot of the objectives and action items. b. Most long-term goals will need objectives c. These are smaller goals that are more tactical in nature and probably will be achievable in less than a year d. Develop metrics where necessary to support goal metrics e. Use plain English Develop action items (tasks) a. Only if necessary b. Map to your objective(s) c. Identify an action officer for each—the person who will be responsible for achieving the task
Note: If you have more than one person ultimately responsible, no one is responsible.
d. Meet with action officer to flesh out tasks e. Develop timelines for the tasks—milestones/deadlines f. Use plain English
HOW TO WRITE A LIVING STRATEGIC PLAN
215
7. Map all components together in an easily read reference a. Mapping should be detailed and in plain English, so lowerlevel workers can understand. b. You should be able to depict the mapping pictorially c. Use this timelines developed for the action items to develop the overall milestones/deadlines for the objectives and then for the goals 8. Don’t let the plan die a. It’s a living document b. Projects should be created for each goal/objective c. Funding, resources, and staff must be assigned d. Milestones/metrics must be tracked, reported, and used e. Successes must be rewarded and failures overcome Notice that we did not suggest a template or format for the strategic plan. We purposefully left that out because we want you to focus on content, not format. Although we don’t mind if you make the plan pretty, we prefer it to be ugly and used. Sometimes we make the plan so pretty (glossy paper, color inks, hard bound) that no one wants to write in it or change it. That would encourage it becoming a coffee table prop, not a living document for daily use.
This page intentionally left blank
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, David. Getting Things Done. NY: Penguin Books, 2003. Atkinson, Philip (2005). Managing Resistance to Change. Services, 49, 1: 14–19. Buckingham, Marcus and Coffman, Curt. First, Break All the Rules. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1999. Clemons, E. K., Thatcher, M. E., and Row, M. C. (Fall 1995). Identifying Sources of Reengineering Failures: A Study of the Behavioral Factors Contributing to Reengineering Risks. Journal of Information Systems, 12, 2: 9–36. Collins, Jim. Good to Great. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001. Dale, B. G. (Oct 1997). Characteristics of Organizations Not Committed to Total Quality. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Engineering Manufacture, 211, 5: 377–384. Dalgleish, Scott (Mar 2005). Can’t We All Just Get Along? Quality, 44, 3: 20. Dervitsiotis, K. N. (Jul 2000). Benchmarking and Business Paradigm Shifts. Total Quality, 11, 4/5 & 6: S641–S646. Dooley, K., Subra, A., and Anderson, J. (Jul 2001). Maturity and Its Impact on New Product Development Project Performance. Res Eng Design, 13: 23–29. Fogg, C. Davis. Implementing Your Strategic Plan. NY: AMA Publications, 1999.
218
WHY ORGANIZATIONS STRUGGLE SO HARD TO IMPROVE SO LITTLE
Giroux, H., and Landry, S. (1998). Schools of Thought in and against Total Quality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 2: 183–203. Gostick, Adrian, and Elton, Chester. A Carrot a Day. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2004. ———. The Carrot Principle: How the Best Managers Use Recognition to Engage Their People, Retain Talent, and Accelerate Performance. NY: Free Press, 2009. ———. The Invisible Employee: Realizing the Hidden Potential in Everyone. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Hammer, Michael, and Champy, James. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. NY: HarperCollins, 2003. Harrison, B. J. (Aug 1995). Should Your Organization Invest in Strategic Planning? Fund Raising, 26, 6: 14–17. Ho, Samuel K.M. (Apr 1999). TQM and Organizational Change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 2: 169–181. Jedd, Marcia (July 2005). Growing Up: Organizational Maturity Assessments Light the Way to Optimized Project Management. PM Network, 19, 6: 62–66. Lucas, James R. The Passionate Organization: Igniting the Fire of Employee Commitment. NY: AMA Publications, 1999. Luthans, Fred (May 1988). Successful vs. Effective Real Managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 2: 127–132. McDonough, E. F., and Cedrone, D. (July–August 2000). Meeting the Challenge of Global Team Management. Research Technology Management, 43, 4: 12–17. Pascale, R, Millemann, M., and Gioja, L. (1997). Changing the Way We Change. Harvard Business Review, 75, 6: 126–139. Quazi, Hesan A., Hong, Chang Wing, and Meng, Chan Tuck (2002). Impact of ISO 9000 Certification on Quality Practices: A Comparative Study. Total Quality, 13, 1: 53–67. Shields, J. L. (1999). Transforming Organizations: Methods for Accelerating Culture Change Processes. Information Knowledge Systems, 1, 2, 105–115. Spector, Bert, and Beer, Michael (1994). Beyond TQM Programmes. Journal of Organizational Change, 7: 63–71. Thomas, Jan, and Willcoxson, Lesley (Dec 1998). Developing Teaching and Changing Organisational Culture through Grass-roots Leadership. Higher Education, 36, 4: 471–485.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
219
Varghese, Cherian (Nov 2004). Resolving the Process Paradox. Cost Engineering, 46, 11: 13–21. Zadek, Simon. (Dec 2004). The Path to Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82, 12: 125, 8p, 2 charts, 1 graph, 2c; (AN 15242507).
This page intentionally left blank
INDEX
Ability to change, 3, 10, 13, 74 Action Items, 32, 54, 84, 90, 93–96, 110 Annual assessment. See Assessment Appreciation. See Recognition Assessment, 5–6, 9–11, 15, 17–19, 46, 21–24, 33, 61, 81–82, 106, 109, 111, 129–133, 135–136 Asset library, 104, 126, 137, 139–144, 150, 155 Audit, 106–107, 162–163, 165–166 Avoidance behaviors, 15–17, 144 Capability maturity model (CMM), 135–136 Capability to change, 13, 133 Career path, 62, 65, 71, 73, 137, 147–151 Career plan. See Career path Change agent, 4–5, 18, 24, 27, 30–31, 79, 86, 92–93, 96, 116, 182 CMM. See Capability maturity model (CMM)
Complex living organism, 16, 167, 183 Continuous improvement, 1, 50, 64, 165 Cultural change. See Culture change Culture change, 6, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 148 Culture of recognition. See Recognition Customer service, 11, 71, 73, 87, 147, 156, 161, 163 Decision-making, 12, 177–180 Development plans. See Professional development Disengaged behavior, 50–51, 79 Effectiveness, 28–29, 31, 41, 60, 101, 109 Efficiency, 29, 31, 41, 101, 109–110 Engagement ring, 50, 52, 74, 76, 79, 81, 137, 180
222
INDEX
Goal-driven behavior, 123–124 Heck no, 23–26, 72, 184 Heck yes, 22–27, 30–32, 184 Hero, 64, 120, 122–123, 144, 182, 184
Policy framework, 6, 30, 33, 61, 81–82, 105–111, 120, 139–140 Process-oriented behavior, 117–120, 131 Professional development, 6, 32, 50–52, 57, 59–67, 69–70, 71, 73–74, 81, 102, 148–149
Issue-driven behavior, 121, 123 Job family, 70, 72 Maturity assessment. See Assessment Organizational health survey. See Assessment Organizational immaturity assessment. See Assessment PAL. See Asset library Pockets of maturity, 24, 28, 30–32, 77, 116, 127, 130, 132, 134, 137, 184
Recognition, 31–33, 41–42, 47, 50–52, 57, 72, 75–79, 81, 120–121, 123–124 Service level agreement, 134, 137, 153–157 Super hero. See Hero WIIFM (“what’s in it for me”), 31, 60, 97
TO CONTACT THE AUTHORS
We’d love to hear your feedback—thoughts, comments, or questions. We also invite you to visit our Web site where you’ll find other tools related to assessing organizational immaturity and improving your organization. Participate in our blog, share your stories, and learn how others are dealing with organizational immaturity. www.org-immaturity.com