The following represents a situation review regarding a change management effort that didn't seem to be producing any change. This review specifically addresses why things weren't changing, and what to do about it. This paper is quite closely linked to two other works:
I have repeatedly stated a single foundational premise:
I still believe this is true, though after reviewing the situation
it became evident that not a single rule had been changed! It
was quite simply an example of confusing activity with accomplishment.
The situation also served to show how easy it is to fall into
The following diagram was developed to show the relationship between the different segments of organization. These segments were developed specifically to promote the change effort within the organization.
The Future Design Team and The Leadership Team had continued
to meet, yet nothing had changed. In effect the caterpillar had
been encouraged to become a butterfly, and it just kept crawling
along in much the same way it has in the past. Essentially is
was expected that the caterpillar would change it's own being,
and this is actually in violation of the initial premise. Activity
to the time of evaluation had been preparatory, yet not active.
I suppose I would say the expectations had been much akin to expecting
Congress to police itself in terms of its deficit spending practices.
So what's to do?
The structure of this diagram indicates that any organizational change must essentially be initiated by the Future Design Team. This would then distribute outward to the Leadership Team, and finally to all of the organization.
The difficulty with this model is that expecting the Future Design Team to change it's own structure, or rewrite it's own rules, may be much akin to simply encouraging the caterpillar to change itself into a butterfly. It isn't that the Future Design Team isn't committed to the future, it's just that it's hard to get outside the structure and objectively look at it, and see what really needs to happen.
In the case of the caterpillar its transformation to a butterfly
is programmed into its genes. In the case of the Future Design
Team the transformation needs to be programmed in from an external
source. So what is the programming that needs to take place?
For the organization to move forward it must first address its current capability, demonstrated ability, and commitment to creating a better tomorrow. This is easily said, and not so easily done. In fact, it can be repeatedly said with nothing happening as a result. So how is it that there is created an impetus for change that will have a real affect on the organization?
Every function within the organization, whether a process or a support function, mirrors essentially the same structure as depicted in the following diagram.
The organizational habit of doing one or two dimensional performance
measures continues to get the organization in trouble because
this provides a very limited view of reality, and therefore an
inadequate basis for decision making. To develop a valid basis
for decision making in an organization all the relevant dimensions
must be considered: Customer(s), Supplier(s), Members, Process(es),
and Function (i.e. self-performance evaluation based on actual
results). And, each "Function" gets to determine the
most appropriate measures of its own productivity. This might
be a single item or it may be several items.
These dimensions provide a set of perspectives which is both objective and subjective. The evaluation of these dimensions need only be as detailed as necessary to provide adequate indicators of the direction in which the function is moving. Essentially what the organization, and the function, needs to know about the "Function" is, is it getting worse, staying the same, or improving. And the requirement is that the "Function" continue to improve.
The implication that goes with this measurement system is that
it is required for each "Function" to continually improving.
The message is essentially, "continue to get better or get
As for how the measurement system should be implemented, there are several essential concerns:
The subjective part of the evaluations can be accomplished with preprinted forms:
This would allow for all Customer(s), Supplier(s), Members,
and Process(es) segments to use the same form to provide feedback
to the Function(s) they interact with from one of the perspectives
All feedback should be provided on the same day with the results posted before the close of business on that day. The final results of this ongoing evaluation would be displayed in the following format:
This provides an immediate visual perspective on how the "Function" is performing in all of the dimensions being evaluated. Let's face it, how interesting would you find bowling if you couldn't see the pins and nobody every told you how many you knocked down?