When will the Q-Project finally be finished?!

Cover stories

Change management promotes irresponsible  behavior

This article argues in favor of firmly anchoring change efforts like total quality management, continuous improvement and raising customer orientation, in  the line organization. It is remarkable that people always agree on this, but in practice  every effort is made to keep change efforts disconnected.

Recently a clearly pleased manager of a large production department reported that the quality project was as good as dead. Work could finally return to normal. He felt that for years he had been pressured to have employees participate in project groups. A merry-go-round of training and education courses had put impossible strain on planning. Everyone had been forced to improvise and work overtime to keep things going. In addition there were countless activities by consultants who kept getting in the way. Their report on avoidable quality costs had gone down particularly badly with him and his people. "As if we don't work like crazy here!!" Anyway, the training courses were over, the project groups had finished their recommendations. There were just going to be some meetings to pass on the results. "Well, let them figure it out, maybe the coordinators will know what to do with it." By then most of the Q-coordinators had chucked it in. The man presently in charge did not have to be taken seriously, and his assistant was still a rookie!

The medium is the message

We see here that the way in which quality improvement is organized, breeds irresponsible behavior.  Numerous routines that evoke this response creep into the approach. Take for example the following methods of managing Q-projects:

  • Working with steering groups and project groups
  • Having specially appointed employees or external consultants do thorough research
  • Appointing special project leaders, improvement managers, task forces and quality coordinators
  • Using training programs to get quality and customer orientation off the ground.

These may be accepted and familiar methods, but no matter how we look at it, they take away responsibility from line management. These methods evoke a clear message. The line is excluded from the search for improvements. Steering and commitment from the top are pushed into the background, the line organization is not made accountable. Project groups start to work on it or people learn about it outside the normal work situation, for instance during a training course.  No wonder  implementation then causes problems. No wonder line managers are forced into irresponsible behavior.

Can it be done differently? We can work in an entirely different way. The core of such an approach is to have every manager think up and execute improvements together with their people. As simple as that.

Example: Improving customer orientation

The management of a company (750 employees) that installs and supplies  food-dispensing machines concludes that increasing competition demands improved customer  orientation. The management team develops an approach to this end in two meetings. It is  decided that all the units in the organization will work systematically on three questions. These questions are:
  • Who are our (internal) customers?
  • On what points can we 'score' with these customers?
  • What actions do we take to that end?

All units start off with a brief work conference lasting half a day/one day.  Progress of the process becomes a fixed item on the agenda for the team meetings of all units in the organization. Every three months meetings of all managers are organized to exchange up-to-date information on the state of affairs. Progress is reported in an internal periodical. Every unit makes its progress visible through a simple reporting system. Departments with outstanding performance records are publicly acknowledged.

After one year 150 improvement projects have been started. Countless tangible results have already been achieved: reduced lead times on orders, reduction of the number of  complaints, improved financial results, improved control of the work flow, reduction of  temporary labor.

In this project there were no project groups. The steering group was the top team, and  that was it. No studies were conducted, except by departments and teams themselves. The  line organization was included every step of the way. Each manager remained responsible  for the (internal) customers of his unit. Issues on the inter-unit level were the responsibility of the higher manager in question. Every unit in the company was expected  to show results.
Does this approach mean that projects always go smoothly and without any  problems? Not quite; there is no easy way. Solid steering and a strong determination from the top team are  required.

Policy down, actions up

The core of the approach concerns two types of activities:
1.   For the entire organization:

  • The top indicates: what, why and how to improve
  • Mutual exchanges and progress reports on the action plans of the units are organized
  • All units participate.

2.    Each unit:

  • Formulates improvement goals within the framework of the top
  • Agrees on actions
  • Makes results visible.

Support is available to the units, and they also have the opportunity to decide their own pace and make their own choices. The core is always the same: steering and self-organization. Put concisely: policy down, improvements up. Many organizations encounter impediments on the way. These appear to have a slowing effect. Yet it only seems that way, because development of the abilities to achieve improvement of results is of primary importance. Working on improvements helps to clarify shortcomings in steering capacity of management and in self-organization of teams. Shortcomings which subsequently can be developed all the more effectively. "More effectively" because training can be focused directly on the behavior and attitudes necessary for improving results at the workplace.

Responsibility in the line

Placing the responsibility in the line organization from the start requires sometimes changes in management style and team performance. The line organization itself must steer and cultivate self-organization. Teams must develop their own improvement actions within the framework provided by the top. Teams should make their own results visible and take responsibility for their own (internal) customers. To make sure this actually happens, the line organization must monitor and steer. Project or steering groups would only put them on the wrong track. Training courses should take the form of short work conferences with existing teams; they should be about solving real problems in the work situation and about concrete actions to improve team results. Steering ánd self organization are the core of this approach. They operate as driving forces towards improvement.

Summary

"Responsibility for improvement belongs in the line!" Everybody always agrees with this statement. Subsequently every effort is made to undermine that responsibilty. First the change process is organized apart from the line. Second the management style relies too much on show and empty words. This applies to TQM and many other change programs. The core of an approach that links up directly with the line organization is summarized here.

Willem Mastenbroek is partner of Holland Consulting Group in Amsterdam. Mastenbroek is professor of Organizational Culture at the Department of Economics at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam.

Kom met uw praktijkervaringen op het terrein van managen en organiseren

Deel uw kennis, schrijf 3 columns of artikelen en ontvang een gratis pro-abonnement (twv €200)

Word een pro!

SCHRIJF MEE >>

Meer over Kwaliteitsmanagement