“Do nothing” – a sensible management strategy.

I enjoyed a short article “Waiting as a change strategy” http://t.co/L0N7CUX by @markwfoden and it made me think about a phrase that often trips off my tongue: “Do nothing, at least in the first instance” is very often the right response for managers to events occurring in their companies.

I’m referring in particular to the way people typically react to performance data, though it also applies more generally in a conceptual sense. You can imagine the person compiling this month’s figures coming into your office saying ”You’re not going to like this, boss. We’re worse 9% on last month”. Then, in today’s high-pressure world, you feel yourself instinctively reacting with “well don’t just stand there, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!”

And the source of this panic-type reaction is that we are not generally taught about how numbers behave in the world of key performance indicators and understanding process capability. Most often the ups and downs of performance life are due to the natural variability of the process or system in question. Trouble is, by reacting in the manner described, the likelihood is that somebody will be found to blame for the downturn, or some immediate remedy is sought to ensure that the numbers will turn in the better direction next time. If the ups and downs are due to natural variation, then blame seeking and silver-bullet remedies will merely add to the waste already in the system. Indeed, it will make real improvement even more difficult as people seek to distort the numbers so that the witch-hunt is avoided next time.

On the other hand, with an understanding of natural variation and how to interpret the numbers using process behaviour charts, the instinctive managerial reaction changes dramatically. “Don’t just do something – STAND THERE!” And then in a rather softer tone – “Think about it. This month’s figure is within the range of variation we expect from this system. If it’s not as good we would like it to be, what do we have to do to work together to change the system of work and achieve the improvement we desire on a sustained and ongoing basis?”

This is an enormous change in management style, emanating from a much better understanding of statistics. “Do nothing” is a bit of a misnomer, I admit. Perhaps “Do nothing before engaging brain” would be more accurate. In fact, you’ll have already done something way before the monthly figures are out. You would have been using your process behaviour chart for months beforehand, and therefore have a powerful predictor of what the monthly (weekly/daily/hourly) figure is going to be so it’s unlikely to be a surprise.

And on the odd occasion when the number is outside the expected range of variation, you’ll be on-hand in real time to know for sure “Something has truly happened differently. Let’s go and find out what’s going on whilst the conditions that created the difference are likely to be still around.

You do not achieve cultural change by trying to change the culture

I was inspired today by @flowchainsensei’s tweet "You do not achieve cultural change by trying to change the culture." Which strangely enough is attributed to Francis Maude MP.

I think there is great truth in this statement. In my experience any attempt at culture change without simultaneous changes in the system of work will simply result in further demotivating staff, increasing stress and increasing waste. It is starting at completely the wrong end of cause and effect.

If you begin by examining the system of work, together with eliminating the overlay of traditional management predilections such as quotas, arbitrary targets, service agreements, and “just get on with it” – once people believe you are for real their levels of engagement and excitement go through the roof and culture change comes for free.

I was reminded of a story told by Peter Scholtes on p45 of “The Leader’s Handbook” (pscholtes.com/handbook) where he asked a client “What are your biggest problems?” “Morale” was their immediate and universal response. “I didn’t want to work on morale problems because they are symptoms of something else and working on them usually involves a lot of useless complaining. I got them to agree to defer working on this”.

Instead, Scholtes got the staff working on improving processes that impacted on customers. For example, they studied the core process with the aim of reducing downtime, and set up a series of subprojects to develop real solutions – for example looking at reducing the time spent waiting for parts.

“After six or eight weeks of involvement in such activities, I suggested at a meeting “Now let’s talk about the morale problem.” “What morale problem” they responded.

So the message is clear: change the wasteful and sometimes daft ways of working you currently have, involve the people who actually do the work, and you will gain an energized and more committed workforce into the bargain. If you like, a corollary of “you can’t motivate people, you can only stop demotivating them”.

Scott Adams has useful insight also. Famous mostly in his deriding of management, Adams offers something more positive in Chapter 26 of “The Dilbert Principle” with his “New Company Model:OA5”. His grand insight about company fundamentals is ““Companies with effective employees and good products usually do well”.

The prime aim of his new company model is “to make the employees as effective as possible, and so to get the best out of employees and make sure they leave work at five o’clock (hence OA5)”. He goes on “Most people are creative by nature and happy by default. It doesn’t seem that way because modern management is designed to squash those impulses. An OA5 company is designed to stay out of the way and let the good things happen”.

Overall he is saying “Put in place the culture for transformation – keep your people fresh, happy, and efficient, set a direction – and then stay out of the way”.

Whenever I hear an organisation say “We need culture change around here” I give a sigh and roll my eyes. Instead, let’s just get on with improving the system of work, eliminating wasteful management practices, and allow people their right to joy in work.

Are we losing interest in the Theory of Variation?

Two very big organisations that I’m close to have made big changes in their approach to business improvement recently. Neither have said this in so many words, but their body language is proclaiming very loudly “Six Sigma is dead – long live lean”.

And is it my imagination, or has “Six Sigma” dropped out of common business language, whereas “Lean” is booming in management speak currently?

In the two organisations I refer to, Six Sigma is regarded as far too slow in achieving business change, and people spend far too long in the classroom away from the business. Lean is presented in a fast paced and exciting style over half the time, with focus absolutely on waste reduction.

One of the victims of this change is that managers are no longer taught about statistical variation and the use of Shewhart Control Charts. And, in my experience, this simply extends a condition that is widespread in UK management circles – that nobody knows about what to do with system or process performance data. People say they’ve never heard about Variation, or they’ve heard about it in college and never used it.

The typical management world is inhabited by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Targets to achieve (judged on a weekly or monthly basis), and Red Amber Green (RAG) status tables to highlight the miscreants. Unbeknown to people attempting to manage like this, they are almost certainly making things worse and adding waste, together with fear and stress to their staff.

People aren’t taught that the fact that this month is better than last month, or worse than the same month last year, might simply be down to the effects of Natural Variation in the system under study. In fact, the ups and downs of performance can only be understood by careful use of control charts (more usefully known as process behaviour charts) which determine statistically the capability of your system to deliver. They broadcast the message loud and clear that, almost always, it is only rational action on the system that brings about improvement.

This is a big breakthrough in changing management style. Instead of setting people against one another, trying to pass blame or take action to distort the system to give the illusion of achieving targets – understanding variation unites people in working together to improve process capability, engages their innate interest in their work, and liberates them from the shackles of the RAG.

I’m all for reducing waste in organisations – but I think by not teaching the Theory of Variation we are perpetuating the biggest waste of all, the prevailing style of management.

Organizational Sabotage - The Malpractice of Management By Objective by Ken Craddock & Kelly Allan

Organizational Sabotage - The Malpractice of Management By Objective by Ken Craddock & Kelly Allan

Making What's Counted Count

Making What's Counted Count by Ian Graham.

Knowing what data to collect is one thing; knowing how to interpret it is another. What is missing from many managers’ competence (and this includes managers at all levels up to the top) is knowledge of the Theory of Variation. Without this knowledge many managers can and do interpret data incorrectly – often and unknowingly using it as the basis for incorrect action. In addition, they do not have access to the powerful new levels of interpretation which knowledge of this theory brings. This paper sets out to explain in simple terms what this theory is and how it contrasts with the implicit theory we use today.

Managing Performance Improvement on the Railways

Managing Performance Improvement on the Railways by Nigel Clements

Originally written in 2000 and last reviewed in 2005. Are things really still like this in the railway industry? Let us know!

The Perfect Target | inspguilfoyle

The Perfect Target | inspguilfoyle

A View of Deming's Thinking in the Modern World

A View of Deming's Thinking in the Modern World by Nigel Clements

Comparing the two Great Quality Gurus, Deming and Juran

Comparing Deming and Juran by Nigel Clements

John Thackara's 2011 Buckminster Fuller Challenge keynote address.: Change Observer: Design Observer

John Thackara's 2011 Buckminster Fuller Challenge keynote address.: Change Observer: Design Observer