Micro Organizational Behaviour

Type “Competition + Process Improvement” into the News section of your favourite search engine, and you will likely get a story (or a press release) that talks about a company overcoming new-millennium hyper-competition. The focus is on the solution (especially if you land in a press release), but one can imagine the work that goes into getting to solution. Not to mention, sustaining it. You may be living that “work” right now.

The classic problem-solving methodology is very straightforward: (1) identify the problem, (2) generate possible solutions, and (3) pick the best one. A prerequisite is to maintain a rational and objective focus, along the lines of “Getting-to-YES” style negotiating. Emotions cloud those operating “in the moment,” but in situations where parties (willingly or not) have to collaborate, distortion can come from many different – and surprising – places.

Rightly or wrongly, we have all pushed back (or been pushed) with a challenge to the legitimacy of our interests. Parents talk about “needing vs. wanting” ice cream after dinner (remember all those children that go to bed hungry); in the workplace, we ask people to separate “nice to have” from “need to have.” In all of this, the message is that “need” trumps “want,” which may cause some subtle limitations to successful results.

Too often, “need” identifies one potential solution (”We need a better inventory system”), while “want” can get to the root goal (”We want to remain competitive with as few changes as possible”). The wording and semantics may seem a better fit with strategic visioning than with everyday discussions, but think of the “want” behind some of these “need” statements:

• “We need more budget to do this project.”
• “We need to reduce head count.”
• “We need support from management/other divisions/the union.”

At the risk of treading into a discussion on inspirational leadership, visions talk about wants (or hope) that would offer almost-universal solutions. Each of our above “need” messages offers a solution that will become a problem for at least one other party:

• Extra dollars come from someone else’s budget;
• Head-count reduction hits “Joe Plumber” pretty hard, and
• Support takes other people’s time and energy.

The first thing to identify is a problem that we can all address. The corporate vision statement may do it, but the responsibility may fall to leaders and micro-leaders.

• “We want this company/unit to remain in business/this country.”
• “We want to reach a sustainable operating size.”
• “We want our company to be more responsive to external change.”

Far from being flowery, these may convey the real, wider-reaching need for change and improvement.With a recent MBA class of mine, the discussion focussed on an idealistic entrepreneur’s encounter with venture capitalists (from CBC’s Dragon’s Den). In the “identify the problem” stage, the initial class consensus was “she needs money,” (which, by the way, is the whole reason for going on the show in the first place, right?). I would (and did) argue that a focus on what you want to accomplish changes the discussion from “give me your money” to “do you want to help me do what I want to do?”

The difference can be very subtle, but can be extremely important. The latter offers more options, including, for example, referrals to other contacts or organizations if the dollar return happens not to be there. Money is one answer, and it may be the only one. You risk not finding out for sure unless you explain your vision.  It is not simply a matter of substituting words (find and replace “need” for “want” won’t do it). Try switching the approach to the problem…from mine to ours. Some leaders/vision statements do it well; other times, those in the day-to-day discussion have to help identify shared problems.

This originally appeared in the October 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

There are two questions arise whenever a change initiative hits a snag that requires a decision: 1) “Who can make the call?” and, 2) “Who knows best?” Such is the interplay between authority and expertise in moving change forward. The manner in which individuals manage this interplay can have drastic effects on the success or failure of any given improvement initiative.

Authority – Who’s in charge?

Things are straightforward when the person who should make the decision has the visibility to come up with the best answer. Small operations, where the founder/owner knows every detail of every process, supplier, procedure, etc., will fall into this category.  It is not long, however, before organizations reach a size where authority and expertise sit with different individuals. In the SMB space, as well as with larger corporations, necessary functional divisions make it impossible for those at the top of the organizational chart to see everything beneath them. Culturally and structurally these organizations have to create an environment where information flows up and down.  Also, different layers of management can create a dynamic by which those at different managerial rungs will be tempted to cover their respective backsides, on the off chance that results are not as favourable as expected.

Two things to watch out for in the authority structure are:

1.Are those in charge accessing all the information that they need to make decisions?

2.Are those in authority taking responsibility for the decisions they make (or should be making)?

“No” to either of these will hurt implementation in every case.

Expertise – Who knows best?

There is a human tendency to over-recognize ones own expertise (and I say this as an expert in interpersonal communications in change environments…). In process improvement projects, however, those “doing the work” can add significant value by sharing their “on the ground” expertise.  Familiarity with the day-to-day operations provides excellent visibility to identify areas for cost and/or time savings.  These process experts may not, however, have visibility for the overall operations or the wider improvement initiatives that are underway.

Good information comes from tapping into the expertise at all levels of the organization. This may sound easy but can get hung up on a couple of areas:

1.Managers who have “come through the ranks” may have to realise that times might have changed;

2.In engaging the “rank and file” managers must foster trust and manage expectations (e.g. just because I am asking you what you think, doesn’t necessarily mean we are going to do it.)

3.Once the decisions are made, managers have the responsibility to “close the loop” with those whose expertise has been tapped.

So what?

Authority and expertise play different and important roles in enabling the most effective changes to take place. The interplay has the potential to slow or stop some of the best initiatives from smooth implementation. I would suggest that more responsibility sits with those in formal authority to reduce the interpersonal noise that habitually arises. This type of “micro leadership” can pay macro dividends as the right information moves to the top of the pile.
This originally appeared in the September 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

I recently returned from a trip to Japan, where I lived and worked for a number of years earlier in my career. As much as globalization can have a dulling effect on culture (internationally and corporately), first-hand contact always highlights some of the starker differences.

It was not long before I was reminded of Japan’s underlying excellence in quality and customer service in public transit. My train from the airport into the city was two minutes late leaving: a thunderstorm had disabled a major station in downtown Tokyo. The apology and explanation, in formally polite language, took both verbal and written forms almost immediately. Restaurant service in Japan has also always impressed me given that there is no tipping, but as a foil to all overgeneralization, we had really bad service one night at dinner.

Nonetheless, my experience working at Tokyo Disneyland around the turn of the millennium provided examples of a strong fit between culture and process improvement. The director of food services for Tokyo Disneyland at the time told me that the baseline for culinary hygiene in Japan was equal to/if not greater than that of the United States. This did not obviate his role in maintaining Disney standards with the introduction of new and innovative food venues, but it certainly lessened that number of food health issues that required diligent oversight.

In contrast, the early days of Disneyland Paris offer insight into cultural clashes when Disney attempted to impose a strict dress code on a French workforce.

Many different attributes contribute to corporate culture, including historical issues, industry traits, geographic location, workforce make-up, etc. My conversations with clients often include reference to culture in terms of the VISION (e.g. “We want to build a customer-focused culture.”) and/or the STATUS QUO (e.g. “We have a real engineering culture.”). Both are important to identify. Once identified, you can start to evaluate the type of change required.

A shift within a culture (e.g. introducing a food preparation technique to an already hygiene-conscious staff) is much less daunting than a shift of the culture (e.g. banning any form of facial hair on male staff in France). Either way, leadership and communication will play an important role in eventual success. Both scenarios need overt support—by actions and words—from formal and informal leaders. Long-term consistency in this is essential for change in the latter case to truly take hold.

Many of the improvements that promise operational effectiveness necessitate cultural change. This never comes easily. A hard look at the existing culture, and a clear vision, can provide a sense of what you are up against.

This originally appeared in the July 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council

(www.supplychaincanada.org).

I recently met with the CEO of an organization that was in the midst of a process improvement initiative. Like many consultants, I am rarely in conversations where everything is perfect: few people talk to consultants for fun!

The project was into its second phase and was proceeding swimmingly. All timelines were maintained with results better than expected. Before long, we got to the heart of the issue: the successes were not being broadcast effectively, which, my client suspected, was the reason for a lackadaisical air around the entire initiative. Of course, there were regular project team presentations to the wider group on results and learnings, but the true success of the little wins along the way were not getting across.

To of us who are familiar with “selling the sizzle, not the steak,” think about a prime cut of meat—beautifully cooked—in a Tupperware container at the back of the fridge. And there are plenty of them back there!

From experience, I know that considerable effort goes into organizing the kick-off sessions for big change initiatives, and that a key objective is to “get people excited” about their projects. Leadership team members, internal experts or third-party consultants who speak at these events are careful (one hopes) to prep both message and delivery for optimal results. Rick Spence, who provides advice to small businesses in the Financial Post, prepared a quick list of dos and don’ts for “delivery” (aka: public speaking) here: (http://www.financialpost.com/small_business/story.html?id=654070) The list is good, but will likely be familiar to anyone who has waded into the waters of being a better speaker/presenter.

I find it noteworthy that numbers one and two on the list are “tell stories” and “tell your own stories.” The thinking is that stories relax speakers (it’s not a script to memorize, it’s a story to tell), and the “your own” part of it brings credibility and sincerity to the mix. The perceived absence of the latter qualities, I would suggest, puts the “nay” in those naysayers who can try to quell the excitement that a successful kick-off creates, and give rise to the lackadaisical air.

In our situation, the “presenters” are relaying the results of projects (e.g. stories), with which they were directly involved (e.g. their stories). So where’s the gap?

I spotted two: (1) those involved do not realize the importance of “communicating the success” and not just “presenting the information;” and (2) those with the stories to tell have little experience and understanding of how to present information.

If GAP #1 is beneath the radar screen of senior management, someone needs to help them “get” that the necessary cultural shift for any change initiative does not come from good—even great—results alone. In my earlier anecdote, my client was keenly aware of this gap, but I doubt he is in a vast majority. Fixes for GAP #2 can take many flavours from the school of hard knocks (forced experience?) to random pop quizzes on Mr. Spence’s list (forced understanding?).

The most effective means for unlocking the potential in these communication opportunities will do two things: (1) involve those at senior levels of the organization, and (2) will provide the required resources for the “presenters” to succeed, namely time (to prepare and practice) and expertise (internal or external, to coach on delivery). This may require some financial resource outlay (investment), whose return will come in the form of a steak that brings adequate sizzles.

This originally appeared in the July 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council

(www.supplychaincanada.org).

This trilogy started with a discussion of three books, the last of which is Getting to Maybe, co-authored by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quinn Patton. The subtitle for the book is “How the World is Changed,” which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to “how changes happen in the world” or to recent trends that have changed the world? It doesn’t really matter.

In my understanding, “Getting to Maybe” entails prolonging the discussion. The emergence of a “yes” or a “no” indicates are hard stop or start in direction. Some examples of conversation endpoints are:

• “No, we are not going to pursue this partnership,”
• “Yes, we need to develop a new offering,” and
• “Yes we need growth, but, no, your ideas for growth are beyond our capabilities.”

Depending on who is involved and how those individuals operate, the time involved to reach these end-points could be minutes or months. A “maybe” is not an end, it is a continuation, extension, or hiatus. There is an understanding–on both sides–that the dialogue will continue or resume.

Recently ending a lengthy run for the development of 3Ms “Post-it” as the most overused business cliche is the Google 20 per cent rule, whereby employees must devote one day a week to unrelated projects. This could easily be termed “maybe time,” which would allow those bringing forward the above ideas to:

• Continue exploring future possibilities for “this partnership” to take shape;
• Tinker with the current offerings to recreate relevance with an existing market segment; and
• Examine the fluidity of our capabilities to explore novel growth strategies.

The power of “maybe” is in accepting that no one knows for sure. Decisiveness is necessary, but can at times be limiting. There are times when keeping too many options open becomes counter productive. Given the speed at which things change, one might expect an increased need for decision. I would argue that with the state of constant flux, some things may benefit from being able to simmer for a little while.  Maybe time let’s these things ripen… or rot.

I have run into friends and colleagues whose strongest motivation was to combat a perception that he or she “couldn’t” do something. Maybe time legitimizes a pursuit that would either be done “underground” or would be a nagging “shoulda” when things inevitably turn south. Passionate and motivated employees will likely make their own maybe time, but will appreciate having it included among official activities.

To “get to maybe” also demands those in authority (formal or informal) to recognize and pull back from “gut feeling” decisions, when maybe is a viable option. Backing up from a knee-jerk decision takes self awareness or deft positioning of the “maybe” or both in order to further the dialogue.

No matter who is working together, the right ideas can emerge if information flows well. At different stages “Yes,” “No” and “Maybe” from all sides of the interaction can support that information flow. Go ahead, call me naive.

There is a rigour to Lean thinking that can appear supremely cold and calculating. However, its unwavering focus on “what the customer sees as value” should curry favour with those who are receiving (e.g., paying for) the end product, which ideally equips companies to look after their people and their environment. Welcome to the triple bottom line.

See… it’s not all about the relentless pursuit of cost savings.

There are some very real inefficiencies (waste, or “muda”) that can be rid from any system with this approach. This may be part of the reason we are seeing such approaches embraced in non-traditional areas, including the service industry and, yes, health care.

The Flo Collaborative

The Flo Collaborative kicked off in September 2007 in order to examine and improve the flow of care in Ontario health care. Two Ontario hospitals acted as pilot sites for projects under the Flo Collaborative, working with the regional Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC). The overall “flow” of care crosses several different organizations; for example, a client/patient moves from admission into a hospital medical unit, receives treatment and care within the hospital, and then transitions from the hospital to receive an appropriate level of care. The approach for improvement includes “The Model for Improvement,” Lean methodology, Six Sigma Tools, and PDSA cycles.

Not surprisingly, many initiatives that offer the possibility for “quick wins” target frontline staff who are actively engaged in their current standard processes. Andrew Ward, Senior Manager at the Erie St Clair CCAC, worked on the pilot project in Windsor between his CCAC and the Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital. He explains, “Often times, staff are well aware of shortcomings within the process but remain silent in expressing their ideas for improvement.” He adds that now, because of the Flo Collaborative, staff have greater opportunities to discuss and try new process changes. Often resistance to change is common in such improvement projects; however, Andrew still found an appetite for the improvements: “Many times we overlook that the frontline has lived with their current system inefficiencies and that they want the change, as well.” As with other change efforts, people have to feel comfortable contributing their individual insight to realize the overall process improvements.

Assessing and Influencing Authority
Asked about lessons learned in getting the all-important “buy-in” from “naysayers,” Andrew sees great potential in gaining involvement from the beginning. He says that it is well worth the initial investment in time to determine who has informal authority, in addition to those with formal authority. “No process change is made in a vacuum,” he explains. “Many things must be considered prior to making an adjustment in staff workflow.” Project leads and others within the team need to feel involved in order to want to share information.

There are some natural barriers that people can hit if they take a “business” approach to anything related to health care. Nonetheless, there are some significant improvements to be gained from a systematic approach, such as that with the Flo Collaborative. Like in any change initiative, it is ever so important to unlock the knowledge of the frontline by enabling good two-way communication. Andrew concludes, “By taking the time and identifying team members of formal and informal authority from the beginning, process changes will yield higher and more sustainable outcomes.” Don’t be mistaken: just because it’s soft, doesn’t make it easy.

This originally appeared in the June 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

We are all familiar with the “Sell ‘n’ Tell” approach to communicating change messages, and we know to think in terms of the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) for our audiences. But do they always “get” (or want) the WIIFM we offer?

Maybe not.

A trip down Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can provide a roadmap of the different “what” that people may be after.

Quick Primer on Maslow’s Theory

Each stage represents a type of motivation. People move through the five stages: satisfaction of one, in most cases, precedes advancement to the next level. The process is fluid, and applies to all motivations, not just motivations in the workplace.

Level 1 – Survival Needs

Many organizational-behaviour theories will tell you that money does not motivate, but the almighty dollar falls into this category when people are actually “working to live.” Others may be able to completely satisfy the higher-level needs outside of work. It is dangerous to assume that those in lower-paying jobs are more motivated by money, but this may be a significant driver based on the individual’s economic situation.

Worth noting: Most people would say “yes, please” to offers of making more, but past real survival/subsistence levels, you can often find needs to which people are more responsive. (See Level 4 for more discussion on dollars.)

Level 2 – Safety Needs

Similar to the Survival Needs, we are focussed on avoiding adverse situations. The threat of job loss is a reality for occupations in certain sectors today. Given all that we read about the shortage of skilled labour, there are likely other areas to explore that will allay this fear, though they may demand a significant career shift.

Worth noting: In a very real sense, actual on-the-job safety falls here. Concern for safety should be a focus for all process improvements.

Level 3 – Belonging Needs

With Belonging Needs, we enter the murky waters of emotional motivators. These stem from feeling included, which can involve being “in the loop” or feeling part of a team. Many people will look to the workplace to satisfy these social needs, at least partially. Workplace cliques develop around any condition that creates an “in group.” These can be based on similar jobs, approaches or interests, for example.

Worth noting: No clique or team will “include” everyone. Some people aren’t necessarily looking for this inclusion from the workplace. Also, efforts to recognize an individual will not be well received by those whose overriding drive is to “fit in.”

Level 4 – Ego/Status Needs

The necessary “out group” that stems from the Belonging-driven motivations may actually serve to fulfill this set of needs. (Recall Woody Allen/Groucho Marx’s refusal to join any club that “would have me as a member.”) There tends to be a negative connotation to “ego” in the workplace, but ego is pervasive in reality.

Worth noting: Money, as a means of keeping score, can come into play here. Also, extreme care should be taken in introducing changes that require employee education. Having to learn something new can be a direct affront to the ego, and can hinder overall motivation and involvement.

Level 5 – Self-Actualization Needs

The pinnacle of Maslow’s hierarchy transcends the “What’s In It For Me” and enters the altruistic world of the greater good. This may come from our personal set of values, or from such wider trends as corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability.

Worth noting: In certain situations any of us can act with a larger purpose in mind. I have written before about playing to the selfish nature of individuals, but it is much too cynical to discount this set of needs altogether. People can really surprise you here!

As Always, What Do I Do? Like all theories or guidance in effectively motivating workers, never forget that people are individuals. Here are some additional things to keep in mind:

• Money is not everything, but may well satisfy higher-order ego needs;
• Belonging and not-belonging may be equally desirable;
• Providing “team recognition” can straddle belonging and ego needs;
• Giving the opportunity to self-actualize may be a matter of positioning the message in a larger context.

NOTE: Many rewards are entrenched in organizational policies and procedures, but, in practice, there is an opportunity for leaders at all levels to personalize their approach. I welcome examples from readers who have had success or challenges dealing with others up, down or across the organization.

This originally appeared in the May 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

Interactions between people produce perceptions of customer service, and a significant part of those interactions are questions and answers. There are classic information gap (I need A, do you have it?), but the issues can be clouded by a myriad of factors from a sense of entitlement (I am the customer here!) to mismanaged expectations (What do you mean you don’t have it in stock!) to negative experiences (for an ongoing saga, please see Rob Kozinet’s Q&A session with Costco.ca).

The extent to which you get the “benefit of the doubt” from another person can be a fluid process: less benefit of the doubt means more scrutiny and “reading into” your wording. When you have no benefit of the doubt, you have to bulletproof your wording. Recently, I was the recipient of one such question from one of the barristas at a local Starbucks.

Full disclosure: I was recently recruited to be on the Starbucks Passion Panel. I have no idea to what extent this is a distinguishing an honour.

“Do you need room for milk or cream?” was the question following my ordering coffee in my own (Starbucks) mug. The reason that this stood out for me so much is the headaches that I have been through in my quest to get a full mug of coffee (I drink it black, so I don’t need room.) I have tried to tell people that I take it black so, “Fill it up,” but they are often already away from the counter so don’t hear me. I have even, on occasion, asked for a “top-up,” explaining, of course, that it is only because I like the coffee so much, and not that I a cheap value-for-money coffee drinker… when really I am.

Long and short, that simple question equated to real customer satisfaction from me. I have no idea if it was deliberate or lucky, nor can I comment on whether such a question delivers universal customer experience value.

In contrast to the bulletproof question, here is another example. I was asked if I was “OK with stairs?” by someone who was a potential client of mine as we were about to move to a second floor meeting room. I noted and genuinely appreciated the query. To me it showed interest and empathy toward me. Upon further discussion, I learned that the individual had recently had back problems that allowed him to walk normally, but not climb stairs.

Had I been in a different frame of mind (offering less benefit of the doubt), I could have easily read into that question. Do I look that tired? Do I somehow seem ill-prepared to climb stairs? What exactly do you think is wrong with me? Verbalized or not, these are the potentially sensitive issues that we can rub up against when people find a reason to question our motives.

I recall witnessing a quickly deteriorating exchange between a friend of mine and a woman when I was a student. The question sought to identify her hereditary cultural definition. It was the wording “where are you from?” that caused the spiralling problems. That particular question is a tough one to bulletproof, so, when dealing with people where my “benefit of the doubt” is uncertain, I find myself asking about languages spoken in order to get around to this topic. Sometimes the ounce of prevention is well worth it!

What I really enjoy about John Ivison’s discussion of contraband cigarettes is the realistic approach to a complex problem. There are several sets of views, priorities and values at work. Two of those are Stockwell Day and the U.S. law enforcers, who have differing views of how strictly to apply the laws governing production and sale of tobacco products.

Rather than saying, “the law is the law,” Day asks the public to stop buying bargain-basement contraband cigarettes. He appeals to the greater good, imploring that money from such cigarettes fuels more dangerous illegal activity. Demand reduction is a great strategy for stemming market economy problems. If there is no demand for contraband cigarettes, the market will disappear. What you run into is summed up in dialogue from the movie ” The Break Up,” whereby the plea “I want you to want to wash the dishes,” (Jennifer Aniston) receives the reply (Vince Vaughn) “Why would I want to wash the dishes?” Day wants smokers to want to pay punitive taxes… and it may work! My grandmother, who lives in a border town, has always factored “made in Canada” into her purchase decisions. Frugality has lost to patriotism, whenever possible, and, increasingly, where “made in Canada” is discernible. Day is counting a great deal on prioritizing “societal good” over “money in my pocket.” (This notwithstanding that people will actual believe him!)

Assuming Day had there attention when speaking, the U.S. Enforcement Agencies reply suggesting they have bigger fish to fry makes no sense. They are more likely discounting the argument because (a) it is flawed and there is not connection between cigarettes and the “big fish”, or (b) they have additional priorities beyond upholding the law of the land. Assuming Day has it right–so no (a)–one could speculate endlessly as to what those (b) priorities might be: appease a potentially volatile First Nations community? provide some air cover to local manufacturing jobs? allow criminal activity to continue until there is a “big bust” that will survive the court system?

On the surface it would be confusing to see why Day would not get buy-in from U.S. law enforcers: they appear to both want the same thing. It is not that easy, nor should it be, but until there can be a clear discussion of what each party wants, there can be no resolution. Clear objectives may demand some heated internal discussions, and hopefully take into account other interests. At some point the First Nations community should be asked what they want from the situation, as well. Entering into negotiations, there is risk in clearly stating your objectives, appealing to the “greater good” and creating an in-group dynamic, may enable objectives oriented toward sustainable solutions to some of these incredibly complex issues.

Stephen Friedman writes about the “The blame game” in this weeks Financial Post. I agree 100% that blame can be poison in an organization, and, as the legal professional is keenly aware, determining who is at fault can be a long process that can be well removed from objective reasoning.

In the past, I have adopted the stance of “pin it on me and let’s move forward” with some success. There is a dangerous balance when it comes to taking this acceptance too lightly, as I have on occasion. Chalk up short-term gain of not having to worry about whose fault it is; the danger, however, lies in the long-term issue of “well, you have made these kind of mistakes before.”

Prof. Friedman suggests that a boss will need to give the employee the benefit of the doubt that the fault does indeed lie with the client (and not, presumably, the account manager or consultant). One has to be aware of the one’s own benefit-of-the-doubt status with others (e.g. bosses), and whether that particular equity rising or falling. If your reputation is strong enough that it can withstand a stain or two, falling on the sword may be the path of least resistance and fastest route to a resolution. If your reputation needs strengthening, be wary of (unduly) accepting yet more undeserved blame.

Picking battles becomes very important. Going through the steps of establishing a solid benefit of the doubt can give you the leeway of forgoing a battle of blame to focus–as Prof. Friedman suggests–on solutions.