Reduce the Finger-Pointing... Naturally

Where do organizational “white space” problems come from? Our DNA. But we can also use our genetic predisposition to solve them. 

Chances are you’ve experienced it. When you call a company for help, you get the proverbial runaround. After explaining the problem and hearing “That’s not my department” several times, you’re transferred endlessly, leaving voice mails that go unanswered. It’s totally frustrating. Nobody takes responsibility because your issue falls between the cracks--into the "white space."  

You may work in an organization that behaves this way. Within your group, people perform tasks smoothly, but there’s friction with other groups. All too often, work doesn’t flow. Stuff gets “thrown over the wall,” there’s finger-pointing when things go wrong, and customers pay the price. The “white space” between the boxes on the organization chart is usually where the ball gets dropped.¹ 

White space issues can paralyze. Legendary for silos, General Motors’ white space issues led to long, costly product development cycles and poor quality. Rather than cooperating, some departments wouldn’t even speak to each other. Flawed management philosophies such as Management by Objectives and pay-for-performance made the situation worse, causing sub-optimization—an insidious game of “I win, we lose” between functions. In a failed attempt to change, GM implemented a complex, matrix-management scheme that confused who was in charge, diluted accountability, and put the company in decline.² And GM isn’t alone. So widespread are white space effects in industry that quality master W. Edwards Deming highlighted them in point nine of his famous Fourteen Points for Management: “Break down barriers between departments.”³ 

Experts cite the lack of a “systems view” as the cause for white space problems. Most managers perceive the organization’s work as vertical and functional rather than horizontal and cross-functional. Consultants Geary Rummler and Alan Brache observed, “(Managers) often don’t understand, at a sufficient level of detail, how their businesses get products developed, made, sold, and distributed.”⁴ Author Peter Senge observed the same, noting, "we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved."⁵ Hence, lacking a broader understanding, managers concentate on activities within rather than between groups, and chasms slowly form. 

But the root causes may go much deeper than a lack of perspective. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes moral judgment is based on automatic, not conscious reasoning.⁶ Buried within the human psyche is hardwired social behavior that influences our choices and actions. Haidt identified five behaviors:

• Caring/harm—deep fondness for people with whom we have biological or social attachments, and the violence we can do to those we don’t
• Fairness/reciprocity—our need for mutual exchange and even-handed application of punishment and reward 
• In-group/loyalty—close association with our tribe’s identity and suspicion of other tribes
• Authority/respect—our tendency to obey those in positions of power
• Purity/sanctity—our desire for social order through conformance and control

Where did these innate responses come from? Evolution. Our survival as a species depended on our ability to live in groups and cooperate with one another. Imagine the outcome if we had never learned to hunt, share resources, or protect our kin through collaboration. These five moral threads made possible group cohesion, coordination, and harmony. During a millennia of natural selection, they became our operating system for creating ever larger and more successful organizations—first tribes and clans, and then nations and empires. 

Our evolutionary success, however, has sown the seeds of our modern-day destruction in business. We create white space problems because it’s natural for us to do so. When firms get larger and competition for internal resources becomes intense, the organization splinters. Our survival instincts take over. We subconsciously revert to our evolutionary roots and protect our own tribe at the expense of the larger community. 

It takes many generations to evolve even the smallest biological changes. But if our core behaviors are intrinsic and immutable, how can we solve the white space problems we create? One solution is to introduce new tribes within the organization to counter their effects. 

Process management methods use cross-functional teams to traverse the white space. For example, leading manufacturers create new product introduction teams including representatives from R&D, manufacturing, product marketing, finance, and customer service. Often these groups are project-centric, small (7-9 people), co-located, headed by a strong leader, focused on transcendent goals, and adherent to disciplined processes. A senior executive carefully forms the team and supports their efforts through high-level reviews and behind-the-scenes functional diplomacy. Through deliberate process design, the five underlying social threads are present—bonding with fellow group members, fairness in equal representation, forming an in-group with its own identity, obedience to powerful leaders, and conformance to an orderly process. By following natural tendencies, individuals in the new tribe execute a smoother process across functions, suppressing the effects of white space between their tribes of origin.

We can’t change our DNA, but if we understand it, we can use it to our advantage. Capitalizing on our innate behaviors, we can mitigate white space issues by using new process management techniques. Doing so subverts silos and streamlines workflows for the better. 



Sources:

1. Rummler, G. and Brache, A. (1995) Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart, Jossey-Bass Publishers. ISBN 0-7879-0090-7
2. Whitacre, E. (2013) American Turnaround: Reinventing AT&T and GM and the Way to Do Business, Hachette Book Group. ISBN 978-1-4555-1300-0
3. Deming, W. E. (1982) Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study. ISBN 0-911379-01-0
4. Rummler, G. and Brache, A. (1995)
5. Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-26094-6 
6. Haidt, J. (2012) The Righteous Mind: Why good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Pantheon. ISBN 978-0307455772

Is your Company Leading or Firefighting?

Some companies never seem to have their act together. Others run like well-oiled machines. How does yours operate?  

Organizational behaviors exist on a continuum. From most chaotic at the base to most disciplined at the apex, the maturity pyramid shows where companies tend to fall. It was conceived by quality guru Philip Crosby¹ and later used in various forms by Hewlett-Packard,² the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program,³ and others. Where does your organization fit? 

1. Firefighting. The organization is highly reactive, relying on heroics to get things done. Success depends on circumstances, individual strengths, and plenty of luck. Getting sales is the primary focus, and any customer who buys is considered valuable. While the environment may be very creative, there’s typically a lot of stress and finger-pointing, customers are often disappointed, and mistakes are frequently repeated. The company does little to no planning, except possibly annual budgeting, and has limited employee training. 
2. Control. The organization becomes more aware of processes and takes steps to ensure consistency and repeatability. Checklists, inspection points, and reviews begin to appear, and more often groups coordinate their work. Sales qualification gets better as the company understands some customers are more valuable than others. Some metrics are in place, and annual planning begins to include goals and key initiatives. Execution is spotty, but improving. The company considers employee training important and screens new hires. 
3. Continuous Improvement. The organization uses formal techniques to systematically improve products, services, and the processes that produce them. Managers and staff are mostly proactive, with the exception of dealing with the occasional hiccup. Metrics are aligned and used extensively, and planning includes a clear vision with short-term and long-term goals. The company successfully executes about half of its planned initiatives. Market segmentation begins to drive development, marketing and sales strategy, and offerings get consistently better. Training is structured and delivered enterprise-wide. Executives carefully construct and manage supply and distribution chains. 
4. Optimization. The organization’s plans and processes are well aligned and integrated, and potential risks are often identified and resolved in advance. Through a history of continuous improvement and targeted innovation, the company has developed “core competencies” that create competitive advantages and open up entirely new markets. Despite its size, the organization is customer-focused, agile, and routinely introduces successful products and services. Enterprise-wide change initiatives are executed effectively. The company plans and manages human capacity and capability over a multi-year horizon. Cross-functional teamwork is high and organizational learning is methodical and widespread. 
5. Leadership. A market-maker, the organization uniquely balances the "yin and yang" of creativity and discipline. The company experiments incessantly with breakthrough ideas, carefully evaluating the ones that work, and only then scales up and introduces them. Competitors struggle to keep up. The press lionizes the company’s methods as “best practices." Despite perennial successes, the company remains on guard against complacency. It quickly detects disruptive shifts in technology, world events, and competitive innovations and mounts strategic responses. 

It’s probably no surprise that firefighting produces erratic outcomes. These companies tend to be new, small, or niche players, and they must fight to survive. Organizations with control orientations experience better success rates. Their customers are more often satisfied and buying again, and results are stable and predictable. These companies are “up-and-comers.” Firms doing a good job of continuous improvement are gaining ground, responding to market changes and becoming top competitors in their industries. Studies have shown that over a five-year period, these firms grow revenues and operating incomes twice as fast as those with control or firefighting behaviors.⁴ Companies optimizing performance are highly regarded and generally maintain top market positions. Examples include Boeing, IBM, Fed-Ex, and Toyota. Finally, a very small number of leading firms dominate their markets for fifteen years or more, producing at least ten times the return on shareholder equity than anyone else in the sector.⁵ They include Southwest Airlines, Intel, and Progressive Insurance. 

Where do you see your organization? Be honest! Chances are you rank your company towards the lower end of the pyramid. That’s where the majority operate. 

So what does it take to move up? As it is with individuals, healthy organizational behaviors are the result of good habits, born of discipline. When the right disciplines are combined into an effective strategic management system, excellence soon becomes a matter of habit. Along the way, greater discipline does not suppress creativity, but gives it necessary direction and boundaries. Senior leaders who progressively implement just enough structure at the right time, in the right place, and for the right reasons create beneficial habits and relentless progress.



Sources:

1. Crosby, P., 1979. Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-014512-1. 
2. Hewlett-Packard Process Consulting services, 1999. 
3. Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, 2013, 2013–2014 Criteria for Performance Excellence (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/business_nonprofit_criteria.cfm).
4. Hendricks, K. and Singhal, V. March, 2000 “The Impact of Total Quality Management (TQM) on Financial Performance: Evidence from Quality Award Winners” DuPree College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology
5. Collins, J. and Hansen, M. T., 2011. Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos and Luck—Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. Cumulative stock returns, dividends reinvested. Invest $10K on 12/31/1972 and hold until 12/31/2002. © CRSP, Center for Research in Security Prices, Booth School of Business, the University of Chicago.

Remembering HP: Habitual Performance

“It’s just how we do things around here.”

I still recall the conversation between the Hewlett-Packard worker and the Tellabs manufacturing VP.  It was 1993, and we were on trip to HP’s Loveland Manufacturing Center, a key production facility in northern Colorado. Back then I sold HP test equipment in Illinois, and we were hosting a group of Tellabs executives on a benchmarking visit. My sales colleagues and I were building relationships and sharing manufacturing “best practices” with the hopes it would motivate them to buy more HP gear.

We were touring the production area and one of my customers pulled aside a passing worker, asking him about some charts hanging on the wall. The guy stopped for a few minutes and pointed to the diagrams, describing what each meant. “This one shows the count of defects by type. It looks like they were having a problem with the solder application. And over here, it looks like the adjustment dropped the defect rate by about 30%.”

A bulletin board labeled “PDCA Storyboard” prompted the interaction. A management presentation earlier in the day talked about the division’s Total Quality Management journey. HP used “Plan-Do-Check-Act” as its corporate improvement method, and the PDCA Storyboard showed the step-by-step progression. The presenter had made the bold statement that the quality practice was everywhere. It had become entrenched in the division’s operating system.

The Tellabs VP smiled and said, “So you’re saying you don’t work here but you can tell what this operation is doing?”

“Yeah. I’m on one of these quality teams in my area. We use PDCA to increase our yields, too.”

 “Come on. You’re not just a ‘plant’ walking by, an expert trying to impress us?” the executive chided him.

His response was working-man authentic. “No,” he said, shrugging. “It’s just how we do things around here.”

I could tell my customer was satisfied. He shook hands with the worker and thanked him. Without saying a word, I knew what he was thinking: It’s true. HP really is this good.

As a company HP was well respected, but it wasn’t because it was the most inventive. It didn’t come up with SPC or kanban or anything else the Tellabs executive hadn’t heard of. It wasn’t because HP only used the most advanced technology. The tour showcased some shiny, new equipment, but most was conventional and well used. It wasn’t because the company didn’t make mistakes. Over the years, the exec had dealt with the occasional HP hiccup. But where Tellabs and others would talk about fundamental change, HP would do it. And do it well.

HP had great people and great discipline. The company had a knack for studying something interesting, trying it on a small scale, refining it, rolling it out consistently, and making it all natural. Author Jim Collins calls this empirical creativity matched with fanatic discipline; direct engagement and practical experimentation followed up with utterly relentless execution in accordance with consistent aims, performance standards, and methods.¹ HP’s behavior, like other dynasty companies Collins studied, allowed it to dominate the test equipment industry for nearly seventy years.

Things have changed since 1993. The HP division became part of the Agilent Technologies spin-off, the manufacturing unit was offshored, and the HP brand has lost some of its luster since the time of “Bill and Dave.” Tellabs also changed. After heady growth, the company suffered from the telecom bubble burst; painful cutbacks, management changes, and eventual renewal as a networking products company.

I’ve changed, too. A career in sales led to marketing and operations, eventually leaving HP to start three companies and work for two more. Sparked by my time at HP, I spent many years exploring why some organizations performed consistently better than others. I learned and applied lessons in my own companies and others through the Baldrige program and the occasional consulting gig.

I’m convinced high performance boils down to simple, disciplined management systems that make people, planning, execution, and learning all more effective. It's true for organizations large and small, no matter the sector. But success always depends on great leadership and the tenacity to see it through. When excellence becomes a matter of organizational habit, long-term success is assured. 

And that’s what reminded me lately of the wisdom and discipline of a great company. Years ago they made it all happen, captured in one simple remark:

“It’s just how we do things around here.”

Footnote:

1. Collins, J. and Hansen, M. Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck--Why Some Thrive Despite Them All. Harper Business, 2011. ISBN 0062120999.