Change and improvement in the business environment

Organizational change and improvement in the context of this thesis was that of the empowered individual employing his/her own Personal Mastery to effect change within his/her own sphere of influence (following Styhre, 2004). It reflects the

continual learning mode in which Senge et al (1990, 1994) suggested members of the LO live. This continual learning was what was used to create some change within the organization.

6.2.1 Cincinnati

Cincinnati encouraged its employees to create organizational change and improvement through the formation of project improvement teams. These teams were deliberately not restricted to certain disciplines in order to imbue all members of the business with the appropriate drive and the opportunity to be part of this movement. In addition, the organization tracked the ideas which came from such forums to ensure that they were evaluated and implemented and that the business impacts were identified.

Cincinnati gave a simple example of this where a site operative had suggested an innovation that allowed them to keep trench ladders cleaner and therefore safer whilst in use. Cincinnati’s leader suggested:

“…the guys have put a grid at the bottom. So when he got out of the tank where he’d been digging, he then stood on the grid, bashed his feet. The mud then just drops through to the bottom and as he walks up the ladders, there’s no mud clinging to the ladders.”

Whilst in the scheme of things this improvement might be viewed as a very minor improvement from a business perspective, it was clearly at the forefront of the minds of those interviewed for the research herein reported. The grid innovation quoted above demonstrated the level of respect shown for those who do improve the way the business operates, no matter how small the contribution may appear to be at first glance.

Such improvements at Cincinnati tended to be run as projects in their own right, for which people needed to be diverted from what might be considered their ‘day job’.

Within a LO, however, business improvement was viewed as part of everyone’s day job (Senge et al 1990, 1994). Cincinnati therefore created a budget and a programme to deliver such improvements. Cincinnati’s leader stated:

“…you have execution plans: This is how we’re going to roll it out. This is the risk. This is the budget.”

The project was then allocated a project manager – where possible the person who brought forward the idea. Such allocation ensured maximum buy-in and enthusiasm around the project, as postulated by Carboni (1995). A leader was allocated to each area of the business to support and advise the person managing the change (where that person was not the leader themselves).

Cincinnati had what its employees see as an “…engineering background of problem solving…” culture. This, they opine, was because Cincinnati had an engineering background and engineers love to solve problems. They suggest there is, in addition, a “…culture of energy…” which came from the fact that the organization had two parent companies with such cultures. This means that people will take action quickly to solve problems and develop opportunities. The weakness of this approach exclusively was noted by Senge et al (1990, 1994) when he described Systems Thinking as accepting that the solutions of today were likely to cause the problems of tomorrow. Therefore simply having a problem solving culture had the potential to cause larger problems either elsewhere within the organization or in the future.

What definitely was encouraged at Cincinnati was for individuals to bring a solution to the table if they bring a problem or opportunity. This approach encouraged an approach of “This doesn't work, but I think…” as opposed to simply “It doesn't work”, and looking for someone else to solve the issue. The approach moved individuals down the path of solutions thinking as opposed to complaining and required Cincinnati to encourage people to come forward with such issues in the first place.

Cincinnati’s leaders ensured that their team understood that they were not going to be penalized for coming forward with such issues. It was much more likely that individuals would be penalized for attempting to conceal problems. In addition, there was no restriction on the level of person whom individuals should approach – there was a full open door policy.

Cincinnati had extended this message to its supply chain to ensure that there was consistency of behaviour within the supply chain. The focus group noted:

“We've stressed to them that if they think they've got a problem they should come and tell us.”

There is, however, a question as to whether this approach was the best method to move ideas through the organization (Falconi, 1997; Shenhar 1993). Deeper research on the movement and implementation of ideas through Cincinnati might reveal the reality of this approach to improving the performance of the organization. Such

research was beyond the scope of this thesis and was noted as potential future research.

6.2.2 Tennessee

Tennessee had automated its business improvement system to make it as easy as possible for individuals to identify, recommend and become involved in business improvements. Its internal communication system had an interface which allowed individuals to send ideas directly to the business improvement coordinator. The business improvement coordinator could then work directly with the idea originator to evaluate and potentially implement the idea. In addition, this coordinator had an important risk management role to play in terms of making sure any good ideas in one area did not create problems elsewhere in the business. Such management was an example of Systems Thinking being used as an overarching discipline over another by tempering Personal Mastery for the overall benefit of the organization (Senge et al, 1990, 994).

Members of Tennessee pointed out, quite correctly, that this process could just as easily be done if someone picked up the phone, and the presence of the automated process was not the key element. The real impetus for change was the underlying culture which encouraged and supported individuals to make the changes in the first place, as suggested by Carboni (1995).

6.2.3 Indianapolis

Indianapolis tried to emphasize that people who come forward with improvement ideas will be listened to, applauded and taken seriously. During the case study, the point was made that Indianapolis understood that saying ‘no thank you’ to every suggestion will soon stop the flow of ideas. Indianapolis’ MD suggested the key to maintaining the flow of ideas was to reinforce the belief that such ideas will be acted upon:

“…[an employee has] got to believe that we'll at least take him seriously and adopt it. I think that's not just [Indianapolis], that's the client as well.”

In addition, the directors understood that slow responses to ideas had the potential to stop the flow, and as such they were generally quick to respond to such things.

Previous research had noted that without a genuine support for ideas, they will dry up (Falconi, 1997).

Indianapolis was, however, struggling to enable the flow of suggestions and improvements from all quarters in the first instance. This was in spite of the very flat structure which was designed to encourage such suggestion flow; a flat structure was noted as successful in previous case studies (Lloyd, 1996). In fact, the focus groups felt that the flow of business changing ideas upwards was better than the management felt it to be. The focus group noted the following regarding communication:

“…you heard it in the meeting. We communicate lots down. But we don’t get anything coming back up.”

The focus group also suggested that the structure and the availability of communication channels were excellent for encouraging idea flow:

“…it's a fairly flat structure but most people knew where to go with ideas.”

This quote suggested a disconnection between employees’ views of the quality of their ideas and management’s view of the same ideas; although both agreed that management was voicing frustration about the lack of ideas coming through.

Indianapolis, however, appeared to lack a transparent mechanism for evaluating employee ideas, which was considered to be an integral part of other cases (Lloyd, 1996).

At a project level, Indianapolis tried to empower its team to make decisions and run projects themselves without management intervention. Individuals suggested that they run ideas past senior management who generally approve them and then these ideas were implemented. It could be that the lack of management intervention and discussion made it appear to management as if there were not very many ideas and incremental improvements being made. The focus group defined it as a “moving process”. The focus group viewed the culture as being one of “…don’t be afraid to get it wrong…”, similar to the case study in Kriegsmann (2005) when it came to improvement ideas. This was acceptable as long as the customer was also on board with any ideas that directly affect him/her. This shift was a direct departure from the usual construction industry culture of never admitting mistakes and thereby avoiding a financial claim (Rooke et al, 2003).

6.2.4 Chicago

Chicago was less empowered as an organization and business change tended to be fed back to management to implement. Their structure was flat such that the learning loop was a relatively straightforward and rapid process to implement. Chicago recently mapped their processes in order to enable process change to be more easily effected.

Individuals within Chicago, however, stated that they could see the implementation of some of their ideas. The discussion entered into by the focus group alluded to the process being a little haphazard. Discussions were around some ideas being implemented and some not, with no mention of what the evaluation process was nor how individuals discovered why their ideas may not have been implemented.

Comments from the focus group noted the ‘non committal’ approach within Chicago:

“…the kind of things I’ve suggested have been considered, some changed some not…”

The advantage of not having a too formalized process, however, was the open dialogue around solutions and opportunities which they felt able to have as a business due to them being a relatively small and close team.

This apparent contentedness of Chicago with a flawed system contrasted drastically with Lloyd’s (2006) proposed best practice case study in a much larger organization.

The dichotomy suggested that there may be a different set of best practice LO processes depending upon the size and makeup of the organization and that any organization can demonstrate a LO culture. This apparent flexibility as to what to look for when identifying a LO was a key criticism of Senge et al (1990, 1994) by Ortenblad (2007).

6.2.5 Dallas

Dallas’ process was an informal one of raising issues to senior management. It did, however, appear to always go through the senior management loop before change was implemented. A committee then gave a yes or no assessment of the idea, although it was stated that most changes were tweaks to an existing model. Where large changes in the business service were required, Dallas tended to enlist the help of experts in the field rather than rely on internal assessments and use of a formal system. It was suggested that there may not be much requirement for business

change due to the ability for individuals to make changes within the processes as they stand. Dallas MD commented:

…our management systems are somewhat different to most of the contractors in that they’re a little bit open to individual interpretation. We then monitor performance against it. We get a formal report back which identifies observations - which is where it says ‘They are not using your system but I don’t think they’re causing you any problem

However, the above approach did occasionally cause a flawed outcome which required an investigation from senior management. It may be questionable as to whether passing this level of personal risk to employees for departure from process encouraged or stifled improvement (Kriegsmann, 2005). In addition, the focus group was less enthusiastic about the informal process improvement approach. It was suggested that whilst improvement ideas were encouraged, they could end up being passed between, and discussed by, the directors and then rejected due to not fitting with the business vision or other systems. The focus group noted:

“…somebody came up with [an idea] and that would have…it was contrary to what we were trying to do. Management said no.”

Such an approach to management rejection of ideas suggested that there might not be an open improvement discussion group which non-directors could join to develop

‘different’ ideas. Such a division of voices within an organization into ‘privileged’ and

‘marginalized’ was a noted criticism of the reality of the LO in Ortenblad (2002). In addition, if individuals were not clear on the organizational vision or impact on other business systems, then such lack of knowledge was seen to draw into question the presence of a true Shared Vision and the depth of the Systems Thinking.

6.2.6 Kansas

Like some of the aforementioned organizations, idea implementation appeared to be a weakness for Kansas as it openly admitted to having an open door policy for individuals to submit improvement ideas to the directors, but that ideas tended to wait before being acted upon by directors. This delay was either due to constraints of when the directors could meet to discuss the idea, or where those same directors were focussing on another area of the business because it may be struggling. Kansas MD pointed out its own weakness in the system:

“…an [employee] will come to you with an idea and you’re going “Great.”

Three weeks later you still haven’t done anything to do with it. And you can tell their frustration…”

This quote suggested that Kansas may be missing out on LO opportunities due to management focussing too hard on solving the problems, which as Senge et al (1990, 1994) observed, was often the cause of future organizational problems.