May
28
Those of you that know me, know that Adhocracy by Robert H. Waterman Jr. is one of my favorite books. I estimate that I’ve given away over 5,000 copies of the book in the last fifteen years.
Every once in a while, I get reminded of what great advice is given there. One of the burning questions in managing culture changes is why ____________ (insert appropriate label here - such as Lean, Six Sigma, LSS, TPS, xPS, reengineering, …….) does not work. First of all, all of them work if they are tied to strategy, supported, and allowed to bring in new tools as needed. Of all the tools taught under any of the labels, we never talk about the #1 tool - time.
Anyway, Waterman took the time to lay out very succinctly what to do whether you are the executive (champion), the change agent (task force leader, project leader, BB, GB, Lean Master, …..) or a member of the task force team. I will take the time to lay each of those out over the next few weeks, but let’s start with advice to Executives on getting started (I have made small edits to the original text where I thought I could make it clearer) -
Executives - Suggestions for Getting Started
Your main job is to create the environment for effective problem-solving, not to solve the problem yourself.
- If you are the leader of the business, you should never lead project teams. The same applies if you report directly to this level.
- Make yourself available to your team on the first day of the project and block time for regular interaction (daily or weekly depending on importance of effort.)
- Your role is to pay attention, act as coach, to help the team cut across traditional organizational boundaries, to encourage it to think boldly, and to ensure that is has the necessary resources.
- Match the scope of the task force activity to the breadth of your own responsibilities.
- Be fussy in picking task force leaders and be involved in helping them select team members.
- Provide the financial resources necessary to make Adhoc Projects work.
- Learn how to contribute to or effectively manage project teams. Create a special training program that teaches necessary techniques to enable success.
- Don’t start projects until you are committed to their importance.
- Focus is pivotal to Adhoc Projects.
“We talk today as if our main problem is rapid change. I don’t buy that.
The problem is our inability to take change in stride.”
Robert H. Waterman
May
20
The common advice of “best and brightest” is necessary but not sufficient. You choose change agents based on something that is encoded in their DNA and is easy to measure.
I will start you with the advice of my good friend Bob Wilson. Bob consults in the area of what I call Human Architecture using a tool called Predictive Index (PI). I am not promoting PI, but will tell you two of the largest practitioners of PI, Bob Wilson and Elmano Nigri, have taken a specific interest in studying Six Sigma and improving results by doing a better job of picking change agents. They know more about us than any other users of behavior predictors that I know of.
My layman’s understanding of the terms Bob uses below –
There are four factors Predictive Index uses to describe a person’s drive –
1) A – The drive to dominate. Presence of this drive is a person who thinks their ideas are the best ideas; they want to win and don’t mind a bit of head butting. Absence of this drive is a person who avoids conflict. People with the presence of this drive are motivated by money because it buys them freedom.
2) B – The drive for external response. Presence of this drive is a person who is empathetic, who can read people well; this person is a good communicator and is concerned about how the message is received. Absence of this drive is a communication avoider, a person that prefers email and voicemail to face to face contact. People with the absence of this drive are often perceived as arrogant and aloof, while what they really are is unaware of their affect on others. People with the presence of this drive are motivated by money because it buys them prestige.
3) C – The drive for stability. Presence of this drive is a person who are very process oriented, that like to know the process and work the process in its proper order. Absence of this drive is a person who is impatient, and like to have 100 balls in the air at once; these impatient folks respond only to deadlines. People with the presence of this drive are motivated by a sense of team and family; they are natural team players.
4) D – The drive for certainty. Presence of this drive is a person who sees the world as black and white; they have difficulty delegating. Absence of this drive is a person who sees the world as a million shades of grey; they will delegate anything even if it is not appropriate. People with the presence of this drive are motivated by a sense of fairness.
Bob’s thoughts on the subject, an excerpt of a newsletter he sends to CEO’s –
Twice in the last two weeks, consultants came back from different client visits telling the same story. They told of situations where CEO’s had directed major change efforts within a specific area. In both cases:
- The CEO had put people in charge of the specific area that needed to be changed.
- The areas were troubled.
- It wasn’t known what was to be done, only that something needed to be changed.
- Performance stunk at the beginning of the effort and continues to stink.
- Whatever change that was supposed to have been incorporated was to have occurred months previously.
- There was no indication the change was going to happen any time soon.
- The CEO was still waiting for change to happen.
Unfortunately, these two cases are representative of many more we’ve seen over the years.
In many cases, waiting for change to occur, even when you’ve directed it, is the equivalent of waiting for Godot and as we likely remember, Godot never came. The waiting was for naught. For these waiting CEO’s, change isn’t going to happen until something changes. And something, whatever it is, isn’t going to change on its own.
Don’t get me wrong, change can happen on its own. Generally, however, this kind of change could better be described as somewhere between attrition and entropy. People are either allowing external influences to exert more force than is their due or allowing variance to take over from conformity. Unfortunately, this kind of change occurs when things are getting worse, not better. And, yes, it can take place on its own.
However, when you want things to change both systemically and for the better, three things have to be in place:
- Support must exist for the change from management
- Change agents need be involved in driving the change
- Administrators need to see that whatever has changed will become a part of the new system
The first building block is exactly what was put in place in the cases above – support and direction from management. Change was asked for, even directed. Yet, that alone obviously wasn’t enough.
Once it is determined that change is necessary, it is important that the person charged with leading that change is a Change Agent (a person with a high A as well as lower D and C in their Predictive Index profile); or that someone within the team that is driving that change is a Change Agent. Why? Anyone who does not have this profile is not comfortable with change, let alone the driving of it.
That’s not to say Change Agents are always successful drivers of change. They may not have the skill set or intelligence to make the required change happen. But, they at least start with the propensity to change. They just may not be successful.
In both of the examples referred to above, the people charged with driving change were highest D’s – people driven to do the right thing. They were both successful managers. They both were excellent administrators. But, they were both failing the task of driving change. They did not know where to begin. In fact, every effort they made to begin was thwarted before it got off the blocks with one simple thought: “What if I fail”?
Highest D’s are uncomfortable driving change because they fear doing the wrong thing or making a mistake. It is easier for them to do nothing than it is to make a mistake. Hence, when being asked to drive change, nothing gets done. And, the CEO waits.
On the other hand, people with Change Agent profiles thrive on change. They look at a situation and ask themselves, “How can I make this better?” They’re not concerned about making a mistake. If they do, oh well. They’ll just try another solution. That’s why you want Change Agents driving change. Change demands comfort with mistakes and Change Agents have that. Mistakes prohibit change for highest D’s because highest D’s won’t tolerate them!
In our most recent newsletter, I described the success or lack thereof achieved by 6 Sigma Black Belts with different profiles (6 Sigma Black Belts are people who are charged with creating change within an organization and who are measured by the effectiveness of the change they create.) The chart below recaps the results.
Black Belt Success Rate: Who Would You Choose?
Profile Characteristics Success Rate
Highest A, Lower C, Lower D than A: 100%
High A, Lower C, Higher D than A: 33%
All other profiles in Sample: 0%
Statistics prove and empirical evidence supports that if you want change, you need to have high A’s who are also lower C’s and D’s driving it.
I’m not advocating you fill your organization with Change Agents. There are many places where you likely don’t want change. Wherever you have high, particularly highest A’s, you will have change. Like it or not. Thus, you don’t want A’s everywhere. You only want them where creation of change or adaptation to it is a necessary part of what it takes to be successful.
In fact, I’m not even advocating that Change Agents be the only people involved in change. High C’s and D’s (Administrators) should be part of the process and should be around to institute, implement and document the change after it has been developed. Once Change Agents develop a solution, they like to start to change it again before it is truly standardized. And change really isn’t complete until it’s been instituted and controlled. For change to be successful, Administrators need to see that it’s a part of the new system.
Ultimately, if you don’t have Change Agents where you are looking for change to occur, you are likely to be waiting for change to happen long after it’s been directed. And if you don’t have Administrators locking in the change, the success intended to be achieved won’t come to pass.
I’d suggest you look around at those places where you’re waiting for change to occur. Ask yourself the following questions, “Have I directed the change to take place?” “Do I have a Change Agent (high A that is higher than both C and D) driving the change?” “Do I have Administrators (high C’s and D’s who are assuring that the change will be instituted?” If any of the answers are no, likely, you’ve got some rearranging to do. Or, you should learn to be comfortable waiting.
Waiting is a solution I wouldn’t advocate, however.
Thanks for reading and I hope you found these insights helpful. And, I hope you don’t have to wait too much longer.
Bob Wilson
So real quick, my take on what Bob’s message means.
We want Black Belts who highest drive is that they think their ideas are the best ideas and they want to win. I think this is true because you send the change agent into a team where only one person owns the problem at the beginning – the change agent.
We want their communication style to be middle of the road – neither high nor low B. This is because we don’t want the message crafted to suit the audience (highest B) or delivered without a feel for how it impacts others (lowest B).
We want impatient people (low C) for two reasons. First, even though we teach this as a group of serial activities, in reality you have many things active at once. Usually it is driven by waiting for data. Second, you want people who respond to deadlines (remember stage gate reviews?). Who do you want to own the Control phase? Highest C people of course, not the change agent.
And finally we want middle of the road for certainty precisely for behavior around delegation. Control implies ownership is given to those who run the process, so ownership that only the change agent has at the beginning of a project has to be completely given back. Highest D’s don’t delegate, Lowest D’s delegate anything. Those in the middle delegate when there is someone appropriate on the receiving end.
Do other patterns work?
Yes. Highest A, lowest B seem to bring the most innovation, but need a PR person as well so you don’t want too many of them.
I also know of some true outliers who among the best but their pattern do not fit. It appears to be a function of exceptional intelligence and high energy. I am talking about two people I know out of greater than 10,000 BB’s I have observed over the last 11 years. So if you are going with the odds, go with Bob’s advice.
Just my opinion, but Bob and Elmano have thousands of data points between them to substantiate.
May
19
Ordinary Miracles
Filed Under irRelevant Reflections | Leave a Comment
Over the years, I’ve observed that what we do attracts many very smart people that are living on the fringe of the business world. By the fringe, I mean they live in that world but as a necessity instead of a choice.
A great example is my friend Jim Blanden. Jim was perhaps the smartest person I’ve ever encountered. He had over 350 semester hours at ASU, but never enough in one concentration to get a degree. He is in the top five of anyone I’ve met in his knowledge and ability to taste the subtleties of wine. I will never forget attending a wine tasting at Duck and Decanter with Jim that was packed with a bunch of yuppie wine “experts”. Jim was loud and without any fashion sense and without much money; and assumed to not belong with these wine “experts”. They were doing blind tastings and Jim knew everyone of the wines long before anyone else. They ended the night with a strange blending of three grapes and no one even came close, except Jim. He named the grapes and even came within a few % of naming the ratio of the three. He understood Corrective Action intuitively and taught many of us that in the absence of credible data – follow the accounting records. Jim never fit in mainly because he never was concerned with politics or hierarchy or any of the normal things that help you succeed in an organization. Thank goodness for an organization like Motorola, where there was talk about understanding others. That made it difficult for Jim to be put out although that is clearly what many wanted.
Another great example is Tom McClain. The best, bar none, lean person that passed through AlliedSignal. Roots as an Army Ranger and as an engineer for Toyota. He was fearless and honest and always seeking to teach when he presented. He learned Six Sigma with no problem, but always defaulted to Lean and presented information as a Storyboard. He was moved from Michigan to Greenville, Alabama on his first day at Allied and never missed a beat. He was in tune with people.
Jim is an alcoholic who moved to a tent in the desert above Phoenix years ago to heal himself. I am not sure of his fate, except I am sure he found peace.
Tom dropped out of industry and was a preacher the next day in Greenville (I am sure he prepared himself, but it was never overt and most were surprised). I am sure the people of his church cannot find a more honest or caring person to be their pastor.
There are many others to greater or lesser degrees, but there seems to be a dividing line with those who practice this. There are those who do it because they love it and get fulfillment from it; and there are those is see it as a path to power and riches.
I mention all these things as they have been swirling in my head for the past three weeks. Several events seem to be conspiring to make me look inward to what is really important to me.
- We had two people from 13 years ago show up at my home, one expected, one a surprise. It turned out to be a rekindling of a great friendship between the two of them as well as with me and Aimee.
- The same week, I had the honor of attending the Bris of the new son of a great friend of 17 years. She asked me to be the Sandak, an honored role; but because I am not Jewish, I played the role of reader. I read a beautiful piece about love and honesty and the hope of the young man growing up to be like Tom.
- A great friend and great teacher was accused of stealing materials from one of the big SS consulting firms. His honor and integrity had been questioned and it hurt him. I got to help by mainly recognizing him for who he was while people he had trusted destroyed what should have been a life long relationship. He prevailed, by the way, he did not need to nor would he have ever stolen. His knowledge is equal to or superior to those who created and maintain the materials in question.
- Through my church, I played several roles in helping host 30 homeless people last week. It was sad and uplifting at the same time. Of the 30, 11 were children – one less than a week old. Many were clearly just getting by, but a few were clearly on a path to righting their circumstances for them and their children. I befriended a 7 year old who was clearly acting out some very inappropriate behavior when I met her. She turned out to be very smart, very friendly, and very helpful. I think she just wanted to be treated as a human being. I questioned the value of helping people get through a week of their life but my very wise partner, Aimee, pointed out that what we did at least was get the two ladies and their families a week closer to being whole again. And the week old baby? Clearly does not have a chance in his present circumstances; but I saw two very beautiful ladies, Jed and Laurie, hold and love the baby with unconditional love. I saw God in those ladies. I missed the opportunity to see Aimee do the same thing as I was not there at the time.
The point?
Not sure.
I am a person who has always loved teaching and learning (I think they are the same thing) and the rewards show up in the friends we make for life.
The thing at the church reminds me that there are more important things in life than the pursuit of a bigger house or faster car (I have to practice that one as I love cars).
I love the ordinary miracles in life, like growing a garden from seed every spring and raising children.
I know that God lets bad things happen to good people – I try not to judge what I don’t understand and try to help when I am smart enough to make it a priority in my life.
When I’m at my best, I am seeking and searching and trying to help. When I am at my worse, I’ve lost sight of that.
Gary
May
16
An Industrial Fable - Prologue
Filed Under Leadership | Leave a Comment
There was a once great company that had become mediocre. It was run by a very wise engineer of MIT pedigree and he wished to save the company built by the innovation and intelligence of his father. The company had once dominated markets such as televisions, radios, discrete semiconductors and the like but had either completely lost or mostly lost their market share. Management guru, Joseph Juran, ran around the US talking about the American company that couldn’t make a profit at TV’s that sold their operation to the Japanese and within 6 months, using the same workers and same design, the Japanese turned a profit. He was talking about this company. Key employees at this company risked their status by publicly declaring that the company had poor quality.
The son who is now President of the company decided to do something about it. He first invested in the people side of things by fostering teamwork and a better understanding of each individual. He invested in problem solving starting with tools from a man named Shainin. Dorian, it turns out, was a bit of a miracle worker. He had the power to walk into an existing operation and solve problems in a day that the people who ran the place had not solved in a decade. He also spoke a strange language and insisted everyone also speak this strange language if they wished to save this once great company. Work continued as the once great company internalized the problem solving. They hired PhD students from the great university in the desert and put signs on the entrances of their facilities that they were protected by this problem solving method. They also upgraded the resources of their quality function by hiring people with theoretical backgrounds in quality and statistical tools. They also promoted within, especially technically sound individuals who also had the drive to better themselves at the great university in the desert. The once great company made great proclamations about teamwork and improvements which, while not generally accepted, gave a handful of people cover to go make progress. And progress was made to the tune of about a ten fold improvement.
This type of opportunity creates strange behaviors. Many in leadership learned to game the measurement. Many who believed the message challenged the games players and were forced to take refuge in Chicago under the protection of a great physicist who publicly proclaimed he was smarter that you, but more importantly proclaimed go work with the people I protect or I will come help you. No one wanted the help of this person who was smarter than them, so progress was made. Some saw the message as an opportunity for great personal gain especially if they spent their time self promoting instead of making improvements. This was made possible because people did not know how to handle these folks taking credit for their work. Leadership did not know how to handle these folks because they were afraid to admit they did not understand the things being talked about purposely at a level not to be understood. The greatest of these was one of the former Shainin teaching PhD students from the great university in the desert.
May
11
I’ve been reading Juran lately – for the first time in probably 10 years. Not unusual, I read him a lot in the late 70’s and then again in the mid to late 80’s. He is the basis of the Six Sigma “breakthrough” roadmap – it is from his 1964 book Managerial Breakthrough and from his videotape series “Juran on Quality Improvement” from the late 70’s - early 80’s. He is also the source of many of the “Six Sigma” materials. Just to clarify, he was very clear he got his ideas from elsewhere as well, he just remembered to tell people where.
He wrote an article in July 1955 for the publication Industrial Quality Control that, except for his phrasing and bias towards assuming all workers are men, is relevant and great advice today.
At a gathering of Quality Managers, a young executive was eagerly relating how they had reduced waste in his company, how through quality control they had discovered new things about the process, and how the production superintendent had taken action.
One of the listeners shrugged his shoulders.
“In my company you wouldn’t get to first base with that, and all because of Emil.”
Emil, it turned out, was an “old-time” production superintendent. Emil was set in his ways. Nothing could make him change. And the management was just too softhearted to take Emil off the job because he had 31 years’ service, and had been on his job for 13 years. Emil still had six years to go for retirement. Until then, no progress was possible.
Then a curious thing happened. Another listener interrupted.
“One of our superintendents is just like that – only his name is Charlie.” Then followed a whole chorus of interruptions. Everyone, it seemed, knew in his own company a superintendent, a manager, or a foreman that fitted the description of Emil.
So Emil is everywhere, only his name is something else. But for the quality control man, is this fate or a problem? Is no progress possible, or is the need to find a solution which fits Emil?
I have met Emil in many plants. From him, from his bosses, from his associates, and from his subordinates. I have learned much about him and his attitudes, including his attitude toward quality.
Curiously enough, Emil would rather make good products than bad ones. He likes to have said of him that “Emil does a good job.” Emil would rather have a high rate of yield than a low rate, because then he can make his delivery schedules easier. Emil would rather have his men make high earnings than lose those earnings in rework. I have never met a good production head named Emil or any otherwise who preferred bad work to good work.
The Emils I have met have some other things in common. Out of a long career with the company they can recall many pleasant memories but also some bitter ones. Here and there they have endured an uninspiring boss, a siege of unwarranted blame, or a piece of skullduggery from some industrial adventurer who tried to rush through in two months what takes a year or two to mature.
Emil looks to those experiences for much guidance to meet the problems ahead. He is getting on in years and he is slowing up. No longer does he consider it a calamity if he is passed up for promotion. But it would be a real calamity if he should be blamed for some big failure, and risk losing the status he already has.
It took Emil many years to become a superintendent. Most of the fellows he started with are still on the machine or on the bench. In their eyes, and in his own eyes, he has arrived.
Emil is reconciled to the idea that he will probably never get to be manager. Younger fellows have already passed him up in enough numbers to make this clear. The big thing, for Emil, is not to lose his job as superintendent. The younger superintendents are of a different mind. The last thing they want is to remain a superintendent all their life. They can afford to gamble and take chances with new ways. But Emil is too far along in years and in service to dare to gamble.
So Emil uses the utmost caution to protect his flank. His security is not threatened one bit by the usual day-to-day fires he must put out. He has been doing that for many years, and knows how to cope with the day-to-day problems. Any threat to his security will not come from these familiar problems, but from something which is unfamiliar and untried.
This brings us to the heart of the problem of dealing with this “obstructionist.” Emil is going to “obstruct” whatever is a threat to his security. He would not be human if he acted otherwise. The problem of dealing with Emil is “simply” to avoid a threat to Emil’s security.
For some engineers this is all wrong. They are advocating something that is so logical (to them) and so valuable to the company (in their opinion). Why should this not be adopted forthwith? Why is it necessary to act out a game with Emil, to cater to his whims, to make it seem that it is really his ideas which are being put into effect?
In particular the engineers reproach their own top management. Emil, they say, should be ordered to put these new ideas into effect. Yet this suggestion by the engineers betrays shocking ignorance of the fundamental rules of the organization. If top management is to hold Emil responsible for results, it must give him collateral authority to decide to act. To order him to adopt this or that new proposal would be taking away with the left hand the authority top management gave Emil with its right hand.
So there is no escape from selling Emil himself on the ideas. If the engineers could only grasp this fact! Once they put their minds to it, they could discovery many devices for selling; in fact, they could borrow them intact from other heads in their own company. If they make their first job that of convincing Emil that they are no threat to his security, they have crossed the real barrier.
My own rule for judging whether Emil is going to be a problem is to discover whether Emil has (a) integrity, and (b) common sense. If these are present, the limitations on results lie only in the sales ability of the engineers.
Well said Dr. Juran.
Gary