Micro Organizational Behaviour

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).