Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

VariableOrganizationToSteeringOvernight

A workgroup that I consult with is excited about the concept of workflow. Hank, a key first-level manager, believes that the use of workflow products will create a process that is an order of magnitude better than the one they have. And that the workgroup can realize those benefits almost immediately.

I think Hank lives in a fantasy world.

This workgroup is a variable organization inside a larger variable organization. The word "variable" means that the organization does anything it feels like at the moment. If the organization is led, directly or indirectly, by someone who drives them in the right direction, the organization may produce value. Otherwise, they produce uselessness.

Hank's group produces little. My sense is that he is an intuitive thinker who believes that technology tools can solve any problem. So he works on the big picture items and neglects the mundane things, such as effectively managing meetings and projects.

I consult with John, Hank's manager. John just became the second-level manager for the department. He describes his new department as having "no process" and "a poor reputation". He wants to change his department from a variable organization to a steering organization, one that chooses its routines based on the results they produce.

Hank advocates the use of workflow products to make the process improvement happen quickly. I suggest a three step plan of 1) create stability through testing and change management, 2) increase customer satisfaction through problem management, and 3) create effectiveness through technical reviews.

I believe the impact of workflow products will be negative. It will actually slow them down rather than speed them up. Workflow will collide with the other organizations because the process between departments is unknown. You can't automate, which is the purpose of workflow products, a process that you don't understand.

Perhaps Hank has a silver bullet and I just don't get it. What do you think? Can an organization move from the Stone Age to the Neolithic overnight? What experiences will you share with me to support your argument?

SteveSmith 2003.12.29

Put another way, there are no silver bullets until the full moon has set. And then, you might not need them.

My two bits (no longer made of silver),

MikeMelendez 2003.12.30

I have briefly consulted to a vendor of workflow products who were a Variable organization. Ironic, in light of the above.

I'm an intuitive thinker who tends to work on the big picture and neglect mundane things, and I used to believe that technology tools could solve any problem. I think I've cured myself of that.

I previously assumed that an organization was a collection of people behaving fully rationally all the time (where "rationally" also meant "according to my own standards"). In such a context, Hank's hopes would not be misguided: if everyone could see things as he sees them, they would adopt his suggestions instantly.

The key learnings for me were a) that systems have their own intrinsic rate of accepting change, and b) that an organization or a team is a system in the sense of a), mainly due to the presence of differing flavors of rationality. So, Variable to Steering overnight just won't happen.

I'm hoping that these learnings can be communicated effectively through experiential workshops, and have worked a little toward designing such. Keeping a) in mind, I'm not fooling myself as to how effective they might be. I know from experience that you, Steve, rock at workshops of this kind.

LaurentBossavit 2003.12.31 (HappyNewYear everyone !)

I had a couple further thoughts, which I'll frame as practical suggestions.

Suggest to Hank that he might evaluate the impact of workflow tools at a small scale by using them to improve his own work processes.

Perhaps I'm hazy on what the "concept of workflow" exactly consists of (in which case I'd welcome clarification), but I suspect Hank is using workflow tools right now without knowing it; e.g., his email agent. Email tools are typically used under a workflow paradigm, with the Inbox aggregating work items resulting from other actors' requests; many people (myself included) generalize that by sending mail to themselves and filing that to the Inbox, in lieu of maintaining a to-do list.

Suggest that Hank create some effectiveness metrics on his workflow use, such as the average number of items sitting in his Inbox.

If Hank isn't using, or is not using effectively, the tools that are supposed to bring about process improvement, that is fodder for discussion. If he is using the tools, then that's data supporting his case - fodder for a different discussion, one focused on how the tools are helping and concrete plans for generalizing their use.

The workflow vendor I referred to above didn't use their own products much, in their own internal processes. During my stint there, that fact struck me as rather interesting.

LaurentBossavit 2004.01.02

Laruent: Suggest to Hank that he might evaluate the impact of workflow tools at a small scale by using them to improve his own work processes.

An excellent idea. It would work if Hank believed in practicing what he preaches. But he doesn't. He likes telling people what to do rather than leading by example.

Laurent: The workflow vendor I referred to above didn't use their own products much, in their own internal processes. During my stint there, that fact struck me as rather interesting.

Too typical. And it clearly shows the company's incongruence. If you can't walk your own talk, then how can you effectively advise your customers?

Notice the similarity to Hank's behavior?

SteveSmith 2004.01.11

Have Hank "tell" people to do things exactly this way, doing the workflow tracking quick and dirty with a spreadsheet or paper. Have him "tell" someone else to track compliance, collate the "process maps" (half an hour of visio each, max), and create a brief-back about how it's going.

The problem isn't the tool. The problem is "management by telling" and having a quiver full of processes. So do some organizational judo with hank, and use all that good "telling" energy of his to get the facts out there that:

• You guys don't currently do things any one way.
• Lots of telling, little listening and less compliance.

At that point Hank can follow up, and do the hard work of un-variabling the organization. Or Hank can flit off to something else. Sometimes allowing people to talk themselves out of a bad plan is actually doing some good. You keep them busy for a while, and they end up not doing something that causes real damange.

-- JimBullock

Jim: The problem is "management by telling" and having a quiver full of processes. So do some organizational judo with hank, and use all that good "telling" energy of his to get the facts out...

Looks like you (Jim), Laurent and Mike are in agreement. You all suggest a small pilot. I have a problem.

I did some earlier judo with Hank. I let him "tell" me what he was going to do in front of his management. And I held him accountable weekly for doing what he told us. The result was laughable. He dragged his feet, claimed he was busy on other projects, and never did follow through. His management noticed.

He will barely speak to me anymore. So another judo lesson isn't going to happen.

During change efforts, I put people in three categories: 1) winner, 2) loser, and 3) not affected. Hank is affected and he isn't a winner.

So I am ignoring Hank and doing judo with his manager, John. And both John and I enjoy the process.

What's your reaction to me intentionally ingoring Hank?

SteveSmith 2004.01.13

I've been around forever, and I have some really good ideas on what needs to be done around here. I tried discussing my ideas with Steve - not only did he dismiss them out of hand, but he maneuvered me into a no-win situation and embarassed me in front of my bosses. Now he won't even talk to me.

I wish my boss had more of a backbone, or more of a brain, so that he would recognize Steve for the troublemaker he is. I just hope someone will put Steve back in his place before he does irreparable damage.

--Hank, as imagined by DaveLiebreich 2004.01.13

Priceless!

I loved every word.

Thank you.

SteveSmith 2004.11.13

Judo:

"Hey Hank, that's a good idea. Remember the time we tried 'the last thing.' That was a good idea, but here we are six months later and it didn't happen. What can we do differently this time, and get 'this next thing' to happen?

"Hey Hank . . . Can I work up a proposal / plan in a couple weeks for how we might get this to happen? Then you and I can look it over before we meet with your boss."

"Hey, Hank. We have this thing here on our plate, and the way to go about it, I think is . . . "

Hank gave you an opportunity to up your contribution and your profile in the organization. Ignoring him doesn't help with that. Using the energy he is contributing does. So, given the pilot(s), in the past you've got good data - it appears (at least to you) that Hank doesn't execute on these ideas. Maybe he can't. Maybe he doesn't think it's his job. Maybe he has a million other things to do. None of this is your responsibility to judge or to fix.

If you become the guy who can get some of Hank's ideas done, you might become his best friend. Incidentally, if you declare yourself competent to get some things done, but not others, you are now controlling the agenda somewhat. Me, personally, I find myself far more competent to deliver on things that I think are good ideas. Took me some time with Machiavelli to realize that this is simply honest. How can I actually deliver on an idea that is doomed or counterproductive in the first place?

The first thing that you offer a delivery plan for is important. Make sure it's small & quick, has obvious benefits, you can absolutely deliver, and you spread the credit around. If Hank is spewing ideas you shouldn't have to wait long before one comes along that meets these conditions. Or take a grand scheme and propose a "pilot" of it. Often a pilot will meet these criteria when the grand plan might not. (Correctly framed, a pilot is always successful - we always learned something, which was the point.)

Purely pragmatically, getting stuff done with the meta-boss while cutting out the boss is a losing proposition. You have to at least keep boss-person in the loop, if not driving.

-- Jim (Judo is about helping the other guy to do some good with all that energy he's giving you.)

Steve, what is your responsibility ? What is it you're trying to make happen ?

You described the workgroup as excited about workflow, not just Hank. What about the people who work under Hank ? The ones who produce little ? Would they rather be productive ?

Is John being a "steering" manager vis-�-vis Hank ?

-- Laurent

I don't think so, Jim.

I tried a similar move a few months ago. I sent Hank a proposed project plan to crete a complex resource utilization report for his manager, Bill. I scheduled time with Hank to discuss it. The discussion was a one way affair. Hank started on the white board and proceeded to outline the things that needed to be done and how they would be done. He had completely ignored what I had written.

His plan disregarded the fundamental (schedule) constraint, which I had specified in my plan. I asked him about the constraint. He replied that he didn't think it was important. Despite that Bill needed to give the report to the IT executives in 1 week, Hank wanted to build an automated reporting system with a complete set of bells and whistles. Creating an automate system would take months to deliver. And he tried to roll the idea right over the top of me.

Didn't work. I made it clear to Hank that until Bill told me that the fundamental constraint had changed, I wasn't going a long with him. He left our meeting immediately and went to Bill's office and talked to him for 90 minutes. He came back and changed the subject. I ask him what happened. Bill had told him that the report needed to be done in 1 week and Bill didn't give a hoot about whether it was automated.

That was the start of the bad chemistry between Hank and me.

I gather that you believe that Hank is recoverable. I wish I did. I would like to help him. But he doesn't want my help. And that's okay. I don't expect everyone to want help, especially from me.

I doubt whether any argument would convince me to alter my tactic of ignoring Hank. I don't enjoy ignoring him. I do feel like it's an appropriate action though.

Jim, let me try a little Judo on you. I have stated that I believe it's important to ignore people who are the losers. As a change agent, under what conditions do you think it's appropriate to ignore someone's opinion?

SteveSmith 2004.01.18

Management thinks that this organization is broke. My role is to help management change the process so the organization produces the desired results.

Laurent: You described the workgroup as excited about workflow, not just Hank. What about the people who work under Hank ? The ones who produce little ? Would they rather be productive ?

I misstated who was excited. Hank and a few select members of his group are excited. His other employees like the idea of being more productive. But managment isn't talking to them.

John and I have a plan about how to get the employees involved in changing the organization's process.

SteveSmith 2004.01.18

So do I. You are modeling Steering behaviours: choosing your routines based on the results they produce. You will pragmatically keep or drop your tactic of ignoring Hank based on the results it produces; not argument.

That answers your question as to when it is appropriate to do so: when you're happy with the results it gets you. (That's "you" as in "you, Steve" - but for now, getting your clients good results is part of your own objectives.)

-- Laurent 2004.01.19 (by a few minutes)

I tried a similar move a few months ago.

Ah, well, I didn't know that. With this additional data, Hank's in over his head, and not to interested in this improvement stuff either. The cleverest thing for you to do is not get between Hank and Bill, so when they tell you different things, get out of the middle. You've done this.

Actually, if you are working with the meta-boss and getting stuff done, you did, in fact get an opportunity to up your contribution and you are taking it. Didn't come from Hank. That's good to know.

I gather that you believe that Hank is recoverable.

With the data in hand at the time, I did not know. With the additional data, I am suspicious that Hank isn't particularly recoverable in the near term.

I have stated that I believe it's important to ignore people who are the losers. As a change agent, under what conditions do you think it's appropriate to ignore someone's opinion?

Laurent called it, above. I think there's a bit more subtle variation than flat-out ignoring, where you can hear the people involved without necessarily agreeing with them or needing their permission. So Hank isn't much value add in this change stuff. There is a lot of open space between insisting on consensus for whatever you are doing, and ignoring the guy. "No thank, you." isn't ignoring, actually. So should Hank propose another 90 minute no-op, you can certainly say: "This isn't about my priority right now." or something similar. Having said that, there's no need for you to stay in the conversation - you don't need Hank's permission to excuse yourself and walk away.

"That's interesting. As I said, this isn't my priority right now, so I'm going to get on what I'm supposed to be doing." Hank can tell you that his scheme of the moment is your priority, which as your boss is his perogative. You can certainly remind him to keep that straight with the meta-boss Bill, as you have.

Onward . . .

-- JimBullock

I can't claim originality for it, but I often use the "3 P's" triangle - People, Process and Product (aka Tools). There is a sequence here - People define Process, Processes can be supported by the use of Products - and a continous improvement cycle through all 3.

Every (and I mean every) attempt to circumvent the sequence that I've seen either fails or ends up costing vast amounts of money and effort for very, very little benefit.

PhilStubbington 2004.03.01

DaveSmith 2004.03.01