The Case for Heads: Buffer for Cultural Differences
In stakeholder discussions with my classes and my clients, we often delve into cross-cultural dimensions that can reflect in different values and motivations. Doing my undergrad in business in the early 90s, cross-cultural management pretty much meant dealing with Japan. Now, in this country – and specifically in supply chain – you likely encounter people from different cultural upbringings several times a day.

To deal with cross-cultural issues, I always ask those with firsthand experiences to share their insight. It is safer to address some prickly stereotypes from the “inside.” This particular dimension of in-group/out-group dynamics creates an opportunity to buffer cultural disconnects (including clashing corporate cultures) by involving someone who can see both sides, and, perhaps more importantly, is seen to be able to see both sides.

Call them “agents” or buffers, due to experience of circumstance, using people in this way can go a long way to smoothing some natural tensions, as well as offering translations, including when “maybe” really means “no,” as can be the case with the Japanese culture.

The Case for Tails: Fight Your Own Fight
One of the case studies that I used this summer in my negotiation class involved a classic showdown between a beleaguered airline and its union. In a recent discussion, a student, who was sitting with me to “negotiate” a portion of the final grade, reiterated his position that management should have used a third-party mediator. The rationale being: no emotions, just facts. It really is simple, or at least was in the student’s mind.

If you have ever been “buffered” in this way, it can actually set off an entire new range of emotions that reflect frustration in not being able to make a case directly and suspicion that the “mediator” (or agent) will not accurately reflect your interests. I wonder, in retrospect, how this student would have reacted if I had appointed a third party to hear his case for an improved grade.

Many times you have to “fight your own fights,” if not for control of the situation then to establish yourself for this and future interactions. Relationships matter.

So what?

The interpersonal side of collaboration can be exceedingly complex. That said, there are some instances where the decisions are clear (e.g., work through someone or address a situation directly). Context can give you an idea, but rarely do we get certainty. Experimenting and taking chances (coin tossing?) can create situations that you can reflect upon and learn from.

Happy reflecting!

Tom Blackwell (National Post Health Care columnist) writes last month about the trends to bring Toyota-like efficiency into hospital and health-care environments. The successes are clear and are often demonstrated in reduced wait times and higher through put. Both of these offer defense to such criticisms as “you can’t treat people like automobiles” because you can treat processes like processes.

One of the perspectives that Mr. Blackwell introduces is that of consultant Tim Hill, who works in the implementation of such programs. His criticism is that, as the worm turns toward “everybody’s doing it,” clients may not be getting the value that they should (or, as Hill puts it, “A lot of health care facilities are getting ripped off.”). Needless to say, the eHealth initiative in Ontario has raised the level of scrutiny on consultants to the health-care industry, including perhaps myself and Mr. Hill.

Accountability for “providing solutions” has always been a tricky one for consultants and service providers. How many software executives would take payment from the efficiencies their product generates? Or how many advertising executives would link compensation to the sales impact of a campaign? With a larger understanding of shared interests, consultants can be encouraged to try to “solve the problem” rather than simply “provide the solution.” This may override the obvious tension of the pay-the-least vs. charge-the-most divide. Again, both sides need to be reasonable.

The bigger challenge is where “the problem” stretches beyond the area of the organization that hired the consultants. The natural temptation for any service provider is to give the client “what they want,” which may not be the solution they need. To use Mr. Hill’s example, the hospital may get the rigour of Lean processes (that they asked for!), but some important underlying issues remain unsolved.

Managing the tension of collaboration is possible when there is an understanding of the shared interests. This likely means that: (1) the customer is not always right; and (2) for consultants, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions… but we all knew that already.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MARCH NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org)

You don’t have to spend too long with me before I start on about in-groups and out-groups. A fundamental belief of mine is that value-producing collaboration requires better communication across traditional divides (e.g. between the two groups). It can, however, be uncomfortable to spend time across a divide (as I can attest from some of the discussion involving research methods).

The set-up for Dr. Hendricks talk peaked my interest: “Many senior executives simply don’t understand the importance and value created by a well-performing supply chain.” His premise was that the best way to “prove” that companies should actively invest in pre-empting supply chain failures was to look at the stock price drop that followed a reported inventory “incident.” (For the truly peaked, click here.)

The take-away for the students was, as I understood it, that many of the traditional statistical methods (presumably familiar to these PhD students) are useless when looking at such incidents. There are other ways to inject the necessary rigour into the study, and this was the focus of much of his talk.

Perhaps a kindred spirit, I am certain that Dr. Hendricks does well in speaking to “practitioner” audiences, and clearly conveyed the importance getting this message out to other parts of organizations. Pre-emptive arguments that require investment are always difficult. Making the case to “senior management” may be easier with studies and findings he and others produce.

According to Hendricks, the majority of practitioners who take interest in this work do so because of such a failure and, conceivably, a drop in shareholder value in their recent past. This means that practitioners can simply wait for “an incident” to occur. Direct experience has a way of persuading.

THIS APPEARS IN THE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (supplychaincanada.org)

“We used to be like hockey referees. If things were working, people barely knew we were there. Occasionally we would be called in to work on problems, but there was often clarity about what should happen. These days, we are baseball umpires and are constantly being asked to call ’strikes’ and ‘balls’ in situations where things are happening fast and in front of many spectators.”

The difference in the impact of the authority of officials is stark between hockey and baseball (leaving national orientations aside). In hockey, a referee is unable to see everything because the action is so constant. In most instances, no action on the part of a referee is an acceptable response. There is an expectation that less-serious infractions and breaches will be ignored, and that occasionally a major breach will slip under the radar (for example, if it happens behind the play). In instances where a potentially game-changing decision is required, such as with a disputed goal, the lines are very clear and the maximum impact – one goal – is usually surmountable for the other side.

Baseball umpires, on the other hand, have a nearly omniscient view of the field of play. They are constantly required to make binary decisions – i.e., in or out (watch this clip for the frenzy created by delayed calls). One of the most-important criteria for an umpire’s decisions – the vertical strike zone from the player’s shoulders to knees – changes with every batter, plus the ball travels at highway vehicle speeds and only very recently has support been allowed through instant replay. “Game-changing” calls routinely become “game-ending” (e.g., how rare is a bottom-of-the-ninth third out on strikes?)

In the working world, which would you rather be?

A straw poll would likely show a preference for refereeing, but I will suggest that many organizations need the calls made by umpires. There are steep potential downsides to “no action” as a response to a situation:

• Delays that cause missing a window of opportunity
• Diminishing perceptions of the person’s ability/leadership
• Deflating employee spirits as “analysis” continues seemingly forever.

From my involvement with supply chain professionals, I’ve found that they often make up the group that has the best view of the “field of play” and may be in a good position to make (or initiate) a positive “game-changing” decision that takes into account wider implications. The criteria for success, like the strike zone, may need some clarification to maintain the quality of the decisions and garner necessary support.

The other thing to point out, before the analogy goes too far, is that the best decisions come when the “us against them” dynamic is altered toward collaboration. This is why I still prefer the restaurant stories.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE AUGUST NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.canadiansupplychain.org)

We are all familiar with the adage: “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.” If this is your mantra, please accept my apologies. I am actively working to change that mindset—in a supply chain function—one evening at a time. I am recently involved in delivering training for the Supply Chain Awareness Program for Employment (SCAPE), whereby people with international training and experience can receive courses toward designations recognized in Canada.

In the overview material and cases, much of the focus is on tools and frameworks to identify problems… not just our problems, but within and beyond the organization (e.g. from supplier’s supplier to customer’s customer). The level of complexity and the breadth of the analysis pretty much ensure a grab bag of problems. In my experience working in various industries and countries, a different perspective (e.g. international) provides an increased ability to see “new” problems. Stopping every time to ponder solutions would be paralysing.

I am not at all suggesting that solutions be ignored. The better solutions to these complex problems demand participation from other stakeholders, who may require some help understanding the importance of the problem. Credibility and flexibility are necessary ingredients in this communication. The SCAPE training at Micro Skills will provide part of the credibility, as will Canadian work experience as it accumulates. Flexibility is addressed through the material in “translating” problems to different audiences. We tend to practice the following languages:

• Profit impact on dollars tied up in, for example, inventory (business language);
• Customer service impact of slowdowns and delays (sales language);
• Risk impact of uncertain forecasting (finance language); etc.

The plan is to involve all the necessary people to contribute to a better sustainable solution that almost always involves complex trade-offs. One perspective will not deliver the insight required.

Rather than bring solutions with problems (or not bring problems because we can’t find the solutions on our own), the line should be “Bring me problems and a lists of potential collaborators!” I think that those with other language skills and experiences could be part of this shift.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MARCH NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL. www.supplychaincanada.org

Discussion at one point focused on communication between students and teachers, which got me thinking about the divide between ideal-world and real-world communication in learning environments.

Teacher/Student Dialogue…Ideally
One of the principles put forward at the meeting was that of lifelong learning. I enjoy the parallel of this concept with continuous-improvement supply chain philosophies, such as kaizen.

In a professional setting, there is no room for knowledge building that fails to be applicable in the workplace. Operating with this in mind, students/trainees should ideally receive feedback on their course submissions, as well as in related areas such as problem solving (e.g., “You missed the main issue”), presentation and writing (e.g., “I can’t understand your argument”), and working with teams (e.g., “You caused disruptive tension with your classmates”).

On the other side of the equation, instructors also require feedback that provides information about both the degree of customer satisfaction (e.g., “You demonstrated knowledge and answered questions”) and the teacher’s effectiveness (e.g., “You made it easy for me to pay attention and learn”).

Through this kind of communication, teacher and student answer each other’s question, “What can I do to be more successful in doing my job/building my career?” Since, in an ideal world, both parties subscribe to the principle of lifelong learning, each will want the information that answers his respective question, to enable him to improve his performance.

Teacher/Student Dialogue…Really
The attitudes of teachers and students will never be standardized, but you can count on market forces to keep the parties somewhat aligned: students won’t waste their time in programs that don’t deliver value, teachers want to remain employed, and institutions want to attract students.

Many evaluations, rather than providing objective information that would help a student or teacher truly develop skills, address questions such as:

1. Was it fun? or,
2. Did I get a good mark?

And consider, would a teacher really be open to feedback that indicates, for example, that she is boring or her thinking is outdated?

Most of the training that I am involved with focuses on skill building (in negotiations and communications, for example), so, as with golf and languages, there is always potential for growth. I will confess to not always wanting it, but I do solicit and appreciate feedback from my students and clients. It is easy, however, to see how the commitment to lifelong learning could waver on either side of the equation.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (supplychaincanada.org) – JANUARY 2009.

We were discussing the example presented by one of the members of the group, who was attempting to centralize purchasing, moving away from the status quo decentralized (ad hoc?) purchasing. Playing a combination of devil’s advocate and helpful outsider, I probed for some objective evidence. The idea that centralized purchasing was “good” and decentralized purchasing was “bad” seemed to be the crux of the argument. How far would that fly outside this group?

No small part of presenting information is providing appropriate support, and this is where the difficulty arose. What may seem “common sense” to a group of purchasing professionals will likely need a bit more behind it to garner buy-in from those in, for example, a sales function. The conundrum that many of us face in supporting to external groups is this: “I can’t understand why you don’t understand this.” We are tempted to try “dumbing it down,” but it may also simply require being ready to answer the question, “Why on Earth would I want to do that?” This question will not likely come from those already on board.

In this article on corporate social responsibility (CSR; potentially requiring a softer sell than procurement rigour), Prof. John Peloza describes the dynamic whereby the camp of those who champion the CSR cause are often talking to each other about their importance, rather than to the finance side of the business where decisions are made. Part of the language of finance is numerical support in the form of return on investment, return on equity and return on assets. He claims that no one in the CSR camp bothers to learn this language in order to engage the finance group in discussion. (And, why bother? We’d rather talk amongst ourselves anyway…) The same may apply to those working in supply chain.

Back to the original example: in light of the current financial situation and a collective cry for more accountability, it may be getting easier to make the case for centralized versus decentralized purchasing. Nonetheless, that case will have to be made to some people who prefer having flexibility in the purchases they make. Having worked in sales, I completely understand the preference for decentralized… and how a sales person might not understand why you don’t see it their way.

Effectively putting the case forward to these “out groups” requires attaching support to what could be “common sense” arguments. It demands going beyond, “It’s just better, OK? Trust me.” Oh, and don’t forget: try to not come across as condescending.

Quick tip: If you find someone from an “out group” who has come to “get it,” ask them to tell you what brought them around. Chances are this support will be appropriate to others in that group.

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

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).

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).

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).