It was an architect who demonstrated for
me the magical power of competent culture change. The newspaper I worked for
had decided to install a new technology process that would radically change
everything in our department, including the physical layout.
The architect was experienced, so I have
no doubt he knew pretty much exactly what would have to happen to the walls,
doorways, furniture and all when this new process was brought in.
Possibly, he knew there could be unique
factors in our operation that needed to be accounted for as the place was
reconfigured, but he’d done a lot of newspapers and ours probably differed in
no significant way.
Still, he went around, clipboard in hand,
to every one of us, and all those people in the departments that interfaced
with us. He patiently probed, listened and took notes.
When
the changes actually went in, they probably were pretty much what they would
have been if he’d never done more than looked at our floor plan and work flow,
and the requirements of the new process. In fact, though, that businesslike stuff may have been
irrelevant to why he did all the interviewing.
The magic in this case was in the people
component of the conversion, the forgotten factor in 90 percent of such projects, at least in my experience. “Forgotten” may not be the right term, because in many cases
the deciders were quite aware of worker-bee sensibilities. “Neglected” might be
a better word.
Too often, top-level decisions that affect
workplace processes are shrouded in secrecy. Sometimes it's because of jealous protection of “authority.”
Less politically, it can be failure to put priority on information-sharing because of total absorption in the planning of the quantitative parts of the project. In fact, it is not unusual for senior people to really believe those measurable, controllable factors are essentially all there is.
Less politically, it can be failure to put priority on information-sharing because of total absorption in the planning of the quantitative parts of the project. In fact, it is not unusual for senior people to really believe those measurable, controllable factors are essentially all there is.
More politically, a familiar syndrome can
arise from consciously poor human resource management. The managers are
impatient with how the questions of uninformed people retard and disrupt a
smooth planning process, or they expect such resistance from their people that they postpone informing
the worker bees until the changes are brought in the door.
Every
change is a culture change – if there is any involvement of people, or if
people are going to be affected. Change managers often are surprised at the
depth of negativity that can arise from what is perceived as relatively minor change.
This doesn’t make the managers bad people. It’s quite
easy to miss this point when you’ve been immersed in working out every detail
for months – and especially when you aren’t particularly knowledgeable about
the processes. And most especially when your incomplete grasp of the workplace reality fails to properly account for the worker bees’ point of view.
That’s where the architect hero of the
newspaper changeover scored his triumph. It never occurred to us to doubt his
grasp of our situation, because he encouraged us to do all the talking. He made
not the slightest effort to demonstrate expertise at anything, be it our work
or even his own. He just asked, listened and took notes.
In doing so, he exhibited skill at a
couple of the most fundamental functions of change management. One was making
very early contact with the people who would be affected by the change. Another was
seeking input, respecting the input and recording the input within the view of
those he was interviewing.
Actually, he may never have known just how much the workers' input influenced his judgment -- but I'll bet he knew it would, and embraced the possibility.
Actually, he may never have known just how much the workers' input influenced his judgment -- but I'll bet he knew it would, and embraced the possibility.
This
is so important. The true purpose of the intended change was not the operation of the equipment
or the efficiency of the rearranged facility. It was to be creation of a faster, cheaper, more
reliable conversion of news into the product presented to the readers. Not easily measurable, but very easy to evaluate after the conclusion of the project.
The newspaper staff members were the
supremely important component in the mix. This man treated them as such. The
information he gathered may indeed have figured in the final plan
and its implementation – but the greater importance was in establishing a
positive, inclusive relationship with the people who were going to actually make
the new way work.
Beyond the personal, there is an operational payoff. This is more than just achieving a feel-good thing. The chosen process and equipment must reflect, in a very practical way, a sure grasp of how
exactly they are to be used in producing the desired results. Everything
about them must meet the needs of the people who will do the work. Those people
must have meaningful involvement – in a consultation role, at least.
Part of that will be getting the right tools, making quality work possible. Equally
important, the people using the tools will have ownership. I picked this tool, and I’m really good at using it.
There’s
more to it than the purely human, of course. Excellent management requires excellent
decision-making across the whole spectrum of organizational activity –
operations, finance, marketing. That's not just business. All of
it contributes to the living culture of the organization.
The broader structure
always has an effect on its people. The fundamental philosophy is all-important. Are the top people brave and constructive? When they're not, it's all over. Very bad culture.
Managing things and measuring the measurable are vastly easier than entangling oneself in people issues. Easier, and the source of much poor organizational performance.
Managing things and measuring the measurable are vastly easier than entangling oneself in people issues. Easier, and the source of much poor organizational performance.
When a change comes along, misunderstanding
its true nature can mean disaster. If it is handled strictly as a technology
change, however big but only technological, problems could dog it for years.
Looked at that way, it’s always culture
change. No matter what the mechanics or appearance. More complicated when handled as culture change, more time-consuming, but well worth the extra effort.
I see now. That wise architect spent all that time with us because of his experience, not in spite of it.
I see now. That wise architect spent all that time with us because of his experience, not in spite of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment