Handling the human side of change

ADVERTISEMENT

. How to advertise here

December 06, 2003-- Quality efforts and their accompanying flurry of training activities continue unabated in many organizations. Many have morphed to adapt to the current crazes of Six Sigma and lean.

However, all these efforts give cursory attention to the most nontrivial task of creating and attaining the significant cultural behavior changes-at many levels-required for true success.

As the role of the quality professional continues its unprecedented, difficult transition, it's not only beneficial but also necessary to reconsider the role within a more formal context of organizational change agent.

The learning organization is here to stay. Yet adult learners are a particularly ornery breed, and it is delusional to expect that intensive in-house seminars will allow participants to attain anything even close to mastery when comfortable old habits are threatened. Traditional in-house education training mills must be redesigned in both content and delivery to align with current organizational goals. Follow-up may need to be formalized to ensure expected breakthroughs in behavior have occurred.

Organizations that succeed will keep this education within a context of understanding the natural human resistance process. The traditional linear, stimulus-response education model is virtually useless when the topic involves subsequent fundamental changes in participants' behaviors.

Change is always difficult, but the current pace of societal and technological change is demanding we absorb in 10 years what used to be assimilated in two to three generations-in calmer times. Organizations are experiencing unprecedented stress, which creates a flourishing environment for symptoms of what Faith Ralston calls "corporate craziness"-frenetic behaviors mired in crisis orientation, cost cutting, meetings and more meetings to account for, usually, lack of results.1

There is a quality saying: "One's current processes are perfectly designed to get the results they're already getting." This includes corporate craziness. Reactions to its elements then become ingrained in current process inputs.

* The current processes are also perfectly designed to consume more than 100% of people's time.

* Logic never convinced anyone of anything, and only logicians use it as a source of income.

* Phrases like "mortgage payments," "medical insurance" and "college tuition payments" pop up in people's minds when they have the urge to rock the boat with funny sounding new ideas.

John Grinnell introduced a model picturing various aspects of quality as levels of a pyramid expanding from top to bottom, with each successive layer even more foundational than those preceding it.2 He differentiated between the upper pyramid elements as the engine of quality and the lower pyramid elements as its fuel.

* Level one: quality of doing-the processes employees use to do their jobs, directly resulting in an organization's results.

Many of the high profile quality efforts of the last 20 years, such as total quality management and Six Sigma, have focused on these levels, and awareness of these concepts has begun to creep into the thinking at many organizations. As a result, most quality education has emphasized:

3. Better statistical feedback regarding technical and administrative processes.

Refining thinking skills through many of the traditional quality tools will sharpen decision making capability. However, as a history of failed programs has shown, focusing just on the tools is not enough.

Ah, because those processes are inhabited by people. Almost no one would disagree with the following brilliant paragraph written by Jim Clemmer almost 10 years ago. Yet it would be wise to read between the lines:

Only about 15% of [problems] can be traced to someone who didn't care or wasn't conscientious enough. But the last person to touch the process, pass the product or deliver the service may have been burned out by ceaseless [problem-solving]; overwhelmed with the volume of work or problems; turned off by a "snoopervising" manager; out of touch with who his or her team's customers are and what they value; unrewarded and unrecognized for efforts to improve things; poorly trained; given shoddy material, tools or information to work with; not given feedback on when and how products or services went wrong; measured (and rewarded or punished) by management for results conflicting with his or her immediate customer's needs; unsure of how to resolve issues and jointly fix a process with other functions; trying to protect himself or herself or the team from searches for the guilty; unaware of where to go for help. All this lies within the system, processes, structure or practices of the organization ... 3

Yes indeed, "Blame the process, not the person!" has become almost a quality platitude. However, these process breakdowns happen to very stressed, very human people. Dealing with the emotional fallout of poorly designed processes will require accurate, timely, useful, nonthreatening interpersonal feedback from employees who work within the processes daily.

Thus, the need for the fuel. The next levels of the quality pyramid (see Figure 1) include:

* Level four: quality of information-personal feedback-that influences employees' behavior.

* Level six: quality of perceptions and feelings that influence employees' relationships with others, including co-workers, other departments and management (organizational culture).

But, ultimately, the base of the pyramid (and its interaction with level six) is the bottleneck. This is level seven: quality of individual mind-sets-the personal operating beliefs and values each employee brings to work processes.

Many quality professionals work in environments in which people have not been trained to give feedback appropriately or to manage their ego reactions to feedback in healthy ways. Like it or not, fear and defensiveness tend to be the rule within most organizations, and longstanding cultural patterns are ingrained. Emotional blockages due to bad relationships will determine the amount, quality and timeliness of information flow between people.

In the types of environments for which quality professionals are striving, conflict must be seen as a basis for learning. In addition, it would be useful to ingrain into an organizational culture the context of the "85/15" reality of a process oriented approach to quality. Joseph Juran originally made the empirical observation that 85% of organizational problems are due to processes, while 15% stem from the people working in them.4 (At the end of his life, W. Edwards Deming thought the ratio was closer to 96-to-4.) Thus, an immediate benefit for any organization would be a commitment to depersonalizing issues by creating the expectation of zero tolerance for blame as a cultural norm.

However, despite establishing such norms, there is also an inevitable element of individual, personal accountability to exhibit the expected behaviors (pyramid level seven). Bottom line: Regardless of the best efforts to improve levels four to six, ultimately the behavior process of the person standing in front of you is also perfectly designed, because of his or her already established values and beliefs, to exhibit the behavior he or she is exhibiting.

Very difficult feedback processes emphasizing peer coaching will need to become another cultural norm whereby an atmosphere of trust allows appropriate, vigorous addressing of dysfunctional behavior without attacking the human being. For example, personal feedback is given in the moment and is results based, as follows:

"The behavior you just exhibited at the meeting will help neither the organization's success nor your personal success. Help me understand what was going on so we can move forward."

In this example, behavior is depersonalized and addressed strictly in the context of being a barrier to desired organizational results. The key issues will be those dealing with collaboration, support and cooperation.

Much of what quality professionals perceive and espouse as routine parts of their jobs (including the need for new quality processes) is seen by others as threatening information contrary to things they consciously or unconsciously believe-the very things that have made these same people successful in the past both at work and at home. Have you noticed how people never say thank you when a training seminar makes them realize their jobs are "nonvalue added"?

When quality professionals experience what seem\s to be puzzling defensive behavior, lack of gratitude or blatant disregard of seminar material in reaction to their efforts, it is most probably unintentional. You would do well to anticipate it and see it as predictable. Juran called these reactions "resistance to change" and broke ground on this topic brilliantly in his seminal book, Managerial Breakthrough.5

This natural resistance, if not more formally addressed, will seriously sabotage needed learning, change and improvement. We can no longer naively approach the fuel elements of quality in an ad hoc fashion by relying on logical arguments to convince people to accept change. For the pace of change needed in today's organizational climate, it is going to become necessary for all to be prepared to, at times, confront and alter their individual mind-sets to accomplish a task or human interaction. This will require time as well as the ability to listen to and assimilate feedback nondefensively.

In addition, as so eloquently implied by Clemmer,6 processes inherently fraught with emotional elements-such as promotions, leadership development practices, hirings, layoffs and terminations- may also need to be re-examined to foster a cultural ability to listen, respond clearly, transform conflict and maintain discipline toward a focused change target. These important processes can also be used to signal well-timed significant organizational events and send the message that things have indeed changed and old, destructive patterns are dying out.

Juran once likened dealing with human behavior to sinking deeper and deeper into an endless swamp.7 Change agents are hardly psychologists. It is not possible to do deep therapy on an organizational culture, nor would the culture tolerate it. So what might be some simple principles that are going to work with "just plain folks"?

According to a results based psychology known as reality therapy everyone has basic needs, which include:

The individual mind-set pyramid level (level seven of Figure 1)- and its resulting workplace behaviors-is shaped by approximately the first 20 years of life, when we are trying our best to cope and get these basic needs met by whatever means. The result is unconscious, predictable adult behavior patterns that are changeable only by significant emotional events-either personal (birth, death, illness, marriage), societal (the Great Depression, World War II, the Kennedy assassination, 9-11) or the sudden realization (through appropriate feedback) that some of these behaviors will sabotage organizational success. In other words, job security.

With the needs in balance, you feel a sense of personal control and peace. However, any perceived threat to a need upsets this balance, diverting all available energy to immediately getting the need in danger met-resulting in irrational, usually alienating, but predictable defensive patterns.

Part of dealing with resistance is getting people to examine the deeper reasons beyond what they explicitly state in opposition to a change-Juran calls this the "stated reason" (immediate gratification) vs. the "real reason" (deep, unmet, personal or group need).10 Part of growth is replacing beliefs and personal biases that would compromise an individual's and the organization's long- term success.

Thus, depending on how this defensive behavior is handled, satisfying individual stated reasons (usually to short-term benefit) can result in serious long-term destruction to the organization because a threatened culture will unintentionally do its best to distract and divert precious energy from the needed change. So be forewarned: Culture eats strategic plans and best intentions for lunch!

Strong reactions virtually never happen for the reasons people think. An unrelated, deep-seated issue-and someone's strong attachment to it-often unwittingly sabotages communication. It is fruitless to either argue or redouble your effort with logical explanations to convince a person in this mode-his or her energy is totally committed to the status quo.

Bottom line: Emotional needs will make themselves known one way or another. And patterns of behavior don't lie-they can be read to intuit threatened needs and destructive individual and group beliefs. There truly are no secrets.

Given this background, you can see why the concept of emotional intelligence has begun to receive so much attention in recent years. It really comes down to five basic skills-possessing self- awareness, managing emotions maturely, motivating oneself appropriately, having empathy and handling relationships in this context-skills that would be very useful to a change agent. (See Table 1.)

The emotional fuel of an organization is also driven by needs similar to those of an individual:

The behaviors resulting from an executive team's trying to meet these needs yield an organization's culture-and the results the culture is perfectly designed to get (pyramid levels four to six). As with personal behavior patterns, repeated organizational behaviors such as management decisions and daily behaviors tolerated within the culture can be analyzed to intuit the actual values.

Once again, there are no secrets. Regardless of the vision and values written on the plaque in the boardroom, the bottom line is this: "I'm sorry, your behavior is speaking so loudly I can't hear what you're saying!"

The same destructive phenomenon that happens with individuals also applies if your organization gets obsessively stuck on meeting one need in particular. How does it feel when the threat of layoffs puts a culture in survival mode or needed truths are sanitized to within an inch of their lives because the executives have an obsessive desire to maintain an image for the sake of respect in the organization and business community? What happens when your market niche suffers by losing a huge customer?

Once this interaction between organizational and individual needs is understood and aligned, you can see how both management and the workforce have an obligation to engage in dialogue that is constructive, nondefensive, nonhysterical, nondumping and focused on identifying and respecting the needs of the business while balancing individual and organizational needs.

Much of the resistance encountered in change efforts can be classified as victim behavior, which is exemplified by familiar organizational culture patterns of whining and avoiding true accountability through blaming, feigning confusion, denying responsibility, explaining why something can't be done and-a cultural favorite-stonewalling.

Once again, this should not be surprising: Current processes are perfectly designed to get the results they're already getting-and this includes the current societal epidemic of infection with the "victimitis" virus.11, 12, 13

Overcoming victimitis will also require a new definition of accountability. Rather than "account for," it means seeing the truth in your situation, owning your results even when they are undesirable, using the past to learn-not justify-and doing whatever it takes to move forward, all while nonjudgmentally facilitating this same process with workgroups to own their circumstances.

Some sobering questions quality professionals may need to ask themselves and their work cultures when faced with yet another frustrating situation include:

* Where are the areas of joint accountability that may lead to the ball getting dropped? What can I do so that won't happen?

* Have I confronted the things or people that need confronting in a depersonalized manner?

* Have I held myself accountable for appropriately holding other people accountable?

The inherent frustration of being a change agent exposes you to the constant danger of being infected with victimitis, as shown by the following behaviors:

Unfortunately, the organizational culture has the luxury of exhibiting these victim behaviors, but change agents do not. In fact, any public exhibitions by change agents of these types of behaviors will act as a deterrent to change efforts. Those darn humans will agree with your frustration and then promptly lose respect for your change agent role. Your own victim behavior has just supplied them with a convenient excuse for not changing.

However, please notice the caution is against public exhibitions of victim behavior. That does not mean you don't have the right to- collegially and behind closed doors-vent inevitable frustrations with colleagues, accept the frustrations for what they are, depersonalize them, take a deep breath and get on with dealing with them effectively. It's OK to visit "pity city," just don't live there!

Is the job of a quality professional/change agent inherently frustrating? Y\es. Are quality professionals generally underappreciated? Yes. Do they often find themselves in no-win situations? Yes. Has yet another manager who privately claims to be "behind quality" gotten so way behind it that he or she hasn't been seen? Yes. Should the quality professional's job title be changed to "corporate pinata"? Probably.

During transitions, quality professionals need a belief system to help balance their needs (see Table 2, p. 43). Here are three questions to ask in assessing the current state of your organizational quality role:

* How can current in-house education be redesigned and delivered in a way that obtains the needed changes in people's, the organization's and, if necessary, your own values to drive the desired organizational results?

* What patterns of organizational behaviors would employees need to observe so the right experiences are created to motivate their choosing values that will drive the right actions to achieve desired results?

* Can your actions create a culture that will hold itself accountable through peer coaching for stopping the re-creation of experiences that reinforce old values and, in turn, drive unwanted actions and produce undesired results?

Like it or not, this may be the reality of a quality professional's role during the next 10 or so years. You can complain about it or do something about it-but don't put all your energy into survival.

* The pace of change and the degree to which it's affecting quality professionals demand they become organizational change agents.

* To achieve results, you have to understand how adults learn, why and how they resist change-in short, what makes them human.

Many quality professionals work in environments in which people have not been trained to give feedback appropriately or to manage their ego reactions to feedback in healthy ways.

Juran once likened dealing with human behavior to sinking deeper and deeper into an endless swamp.

1. Faith Ralston, Emotions@Work: Get Great Results by Encouraging Accountability and Resolving Conflicts, 1st Books Library, 2002.

2. John R. Grinnell Jr., "Optimize the Human System," Quality Progress, November 1994.

3. Jim Clemmer, Firing on All Cylinders: The Service/Quality System for High-Powered Corporate Performance, Irwin Professional Publishing, 1994, www.clemmer.net.

4. Joseph M. Juran, Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager's Job, McGraw-Hill, 1964.

6. Clemmer, Firing on All Cylinders: The Service/Quality System for High-Powered Corporate Performance, see reference 3.

7. Juran, Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager's Job, see reference 4.

8. H.W. Smith, What Matters Most: The Power of Living Your Values, Simon & Schuster, 2000.

9. Galileo Initiative, "The Reality Model," www.galileoinitiative.com. (Go to www.galileoinitiative.com/ Module_1_Sample_files/frame.htm for a demonstration of the model.)

10. Juran, Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager's Job, see reference 4.

12. Roger Connors, The OZ Principle: Getting Results Through Individual and Organizational Accountability, Prentice-Hall, 1994.

13. J.G. Miller, QBQ! The Question Behind the Question: What To Really Ask Yourself ... Practicing Personal Accountability in Business and in Life, Denver Press, 2001, www.qbq.com.

DAVIS BALESTRACCI, principal of Harmony Consulting in Glendale, AZ, earned a master's degree in statistics from the University of Minnesota. A member of ASQ, he is the chair of ASQ's Statistics Division and primary author of Quality Improvement: Practical Applications for Medical Group Practice, second edition, published by the Center for Research in Ambulatory Health Care Administration.

Click here to view more current news articles

Did you find this material interesting?
Do you want more information of this type?

Comment via FEEDBACK

What related topics would you like to see covered?
What additional information on this topic would you find useful?

Have you seen the Great Deals from top brand name manufacturers? You haven't? What are you waiting for? Get insider promotions. Click Here for deals

Jobwerx makes no representation as to the accuracy of information transmitted herein.