Tackling Your Organizational Culture

I had an appointment with the Head of HR & Learning of a prominent listed company recently.  Upon announcing myself at the reception, I was told that ‘somebody’ will come down to escort me to the meeting room.  I waited.  Soon a presentable young lady showed up to take me to the meeting room.
Just as we were approaching the elevator bank, my escort pulled back and suggested we allow “him” – indicating a suited individual who was waiting for the elevator – to go first.  I obliged of course, but it piqued my curiosity. 
“Who is he?” I asked. 
“He’s our CEO”. 
“And why are we not waiting with him?”
“It’s not proper, right?  I always avoid going in the same elevator with top management”
 This was a young, up and coming technology company.  The CEO may have been 40 or so.  (Did he know what his staff was “doing to him”?)

Got me wondering.  What if my company was the same?  Would I even know?  What have I put in place – systems, processes, structures – to ensure this will not happen to me?

The fact is, I had never given this issue serious thought.  Just assumed we had the right culture!  So what can a CEO do to ensure the culture he wants to establish is seeded, nurtured and thrives in his organization? 
Luckily we have some help from the Gurus of Management!

Ram Charan

One of the best I have come across on influencing organizational culture, comes from Ram Charan, best selling author and consultant for the top F-100 companies and ex-faculty of Harvard Business School.  In his landmark 2001 article, Ram gives us some powerful insights:

1. It all begins with dialogue
2. The right social operating mechanisms (rhythmic meetings on strategy, performance review, talent, etc)
3. Follow-through and Feedback 
4. Rewards and Sanctions

When you read about systems and processes like these and compare them to a typical Asian situation, you will readily find the typical blind spots.  In my view, for

Asian companies, these are dialogue, feedback and sanctions.

• Dialogue

For some historic reason, Asia has a problem with open dialogue.  One could trace it to the culture of respecting elders.  But, to my mind, the more important problem

is the definition of elders.  Elder, in Asia, is defined as anyone in a position of authority; it could be the father, the priest or the king.  These people got into their positions the hard way and then do everything possible to keep it that way.

I would additionally argue that North Asia (India, Pakistan…) have been able to wash this away a bit better than the rest of Asia (Maybe, we should thank the British authoritarianism for this).  Proof of my ‘theory’ lies in the controlled economies of China and Singapore and to a lesser extent, even Malaysia.  Political leadership either abhors open dialogue or struggles to ‘open’ dialogue in selective areas.  This naturally carries into business management.  Having an opinion different from that of the Boss is equivalent to raising a rebellion.  Bosses are not told the bad news.  Rather the masses will somehow manage the issue, even if it means pleading with the customer, or other external organization.  Ram offers four ‘must haves’ for a culture that encourages open dialogue: openness (i.e., the outcome is not pre-determined), candor, informality, and closure (you don’t go home without reaching a decision).

• Feedback. 

I have spoken earlier about feedback.  Here, I will only add a quote from Ram: “By failing to provide honest feedback, Leaders cheat their people by depriving them of the information they need to improve.”  I will also go out on a limb and say that most managers do a poor job of providing feedback because they lack the courage to see the employee in the eye and give negative feedback.  This, in turn, is because they have not been trained in providing non-threatening, constructive feedback.

• Sanctions. 

Most companies lack both rewards and sanctions.  But things are getting better and many companies are introducing rewards systems.  Unfortunately, sanctions are still unheard of.  Many argue that lack of reward is a sanction in itself.  I would not agree.  To my mind, there have to be three classes, separated by the majority, who would be ‘average’.  X% above average, a large chink of average in the middle, and Y% below average. 
Why should we continue to tolerate the Y?  By doing this we equate them with average and are doing a major disservice to the average.  Of course, there is lot more to culture than what we've covered here.  Do expect more in forthcoming posts

Sri
www.sigmax-e.com

The Four Wheels of Process

Ever wondered what could be the basic building blocks of a business process, the wheels that make it run?  Considering the predominant position processes have in our lives today, it is a concept that certainly deserves some attention.

In one sense, the good old SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer) may be said to represent an appropriate framework.  As a huge champion of SIPOC, I am convinced it is one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of any process manager.  However, the SIPOC takes a ‘process’ and sequential view, looking at the factors that impact a process.  When I talk about building blocks and wheels, I refer more to critical components that constitute process.  It is more of an in-depth and systematic look at the “P” in SIPOC.  I find that there are a few critical elements that drive the effectiveness and efficiency of most processes.  The Four Wheels approach suggested below is an attempt to focus attention on these ‘vital few’ elements.

I submit this more as a framework for further thought.  Hopefully, we will have more contributions to the idea and eventually have a model that can work effectively in most situations.

I believe four ingredients are critical for the completion of any process, especially in an organization setting.  Let me discuss them briefly:

Authority:

The person (or group) entrusted with the process needs to have the authority to complete it.  This means, the authority to take the process all the way to an output that has a direct impact on a desired outcome or business result.  If this authority is limited, it will lead to passing the activity on to another person or group (or worse, another process), which has a direct bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.  At a minimum, it can lead to delays or disagreements.  Empowering the person concerned to complete the process also minimizes hand-offs – a bane for any process.
The key factors driving Authority are:
o Empowerment
o Understanding of process dynamics versus specialized skills

Information or Ingredients:  
Whether the process belongs in the real or the virtual world, the person needs to be in possession of all information and / or ingredients to perform the process.  Any shortcoming here can result in delays (in attempting to procure it) or defects in the output.
Information in turn, involves:
o identifying the information / ingredient required,
o having access to it as needed; and once that process is completed,
o the documentation of the completed process, for records.
Each of these elements can in turn cause inefficiencies or defects, if not addressed appropriately.

Systems & Infrastructure:
This primarily refers to IT systems, but not entirely.  Too many disparate systems, weak integration among them or unreliable infrastructure (frequent breakdowns) will delay the process or cause errors, besides impacting the motivation of the workers.
The key drivers in systems and infrastructure are:
o Understanding of process design requirements
o Well integrated systems / enterprise resource planning
o Reliable infrastructure

Manpower (Skills & Motivation):
Finally, the person entrusted with the process needs to possess the skills necessary to complete the process.  Again, any lack of skills can result either in a defective output or delay caused by acquiring the skill.  Additionally, in today’s hyper-competitive, knowledge-driven environment, motivation of the persons entrusted with the process can make a ‘make-or-break’ difference.  Poor motivation levels can cause delays  (procrastination), defects (errors), or even fraud.
The key elements driving skills and motivations are well known:
o Hiring (especially to ensure, basic capabilities and motivation, which cannot be added later)
o Training,
o Compensation, and
o Leadership

**

It has been my experience that most process improvements fall within any one or a combination of these four wheels.  While I may be off at the edges, and there could well be some which fall outside these four, I do feel they should take care of the vast majority of processes.

I call these the four wheels of process because they not only support the vehicle that a process is, they are also critical in keeping it moving, in determining the direction the vehicle takes as well as in absorbing expected shocks on the road.

The power of looking at process in terms of wheels is that not only does it focus on the vital few components of a process; it can also be used as a ‘quick and dirty’ check list for making process improvements.  For instance, one could ask:
1. Does the team entrusted with this process have the authority to complete it?
2. Do we have a complete understanding of the information (or ingredients) needed to complete the process?  Does the team have access to all the information required?
3. Has the person handling the process been equipped with all necessary systems and infrastructure to complete the process effectively and efficiently?
4. Does the team have all the skills required and the motivation to perform the process to ensure the output meets the desired outcome?

A negative answer to any of the questions should lead an enquiry into the root cause(s) for that and an exploration of ideas to eliminate such root causes.

The four wheels are conceptually akin to the typical categories one selects for an Ishikawa Diagram (aka Fishbone analysis).  I am talking about categories like Machine, Method, Material, Manpower, Policies, Procedures and the like.  In that sense I would recommend using the four wheels as the four bones of the fish.  Simpler and more focused.

May be I am over simplifying the problem.  Nevertheless, as a new idea, I would certainly put it to the severest test.  You will hear more about this from me.  For sure.

Sri
www.sigmax-e.com

VISION -- Oops! There I go again!

I find I am not done with the vision thing!  So, this is a follow-up to my previous post!

Once we separate Stab (stating the obvious) visions and Real visions, vision and strategy become quite intertwined.  Yes, vision is still the distant objective; and strategy more the “how” of achieving that vision in the shortest, simplest way.  But without a strategy to match, your vision will remain on banners – whether on walls or online.  Conversely however, a clever strategy may not need a clear vision to take it forward.

It, of course, helps to have a clear vision as well.  But it is not a necessity.  In fact, when the future is not clear, especially in high technology spaces, or where popularity or standards are involved, many companies adopt a strategy of ‘flexibility’ or ‘spreading the investment’.  That’s a case where we have a clear strategy (we will NOT invest heavily in any one technology / platform), but not a clear vision.  Rather, we admit to ourselves that our vision of the future is not clear.  That understanding drives the strategy!

Of course, many fail even with a clear and powerful vision.  One cause, as we discussed above, is a weak strategy to execute it.  Another is having a great vision and even a great strategy, but no execution capability.

A key element of execution and something I see more often is the communication of the vision.  Most Stab visions are followed with a routine communication plan.  Posters, banners, website updates, or at best, town hall sessions.  Little emphasis is placed on the style of communication: the language, the content, the stories, the context… and perhaps most important of all, the leaders do not pack it with passion.

In fact, I have seen this so often that I’d like to make communicating the vision the real point of this post!  Yet, rather than re-invent what this should be like, permit me to quote from the best.  Here’s what John P. Kotter said in his landmark article “What Leaders Really Do” in Harvard Business Review, circa 1990.

“Good leaders… articulate the organization’s vision in a manner that stresses the values of the audience they are addressing.  This makes the work important to those individuals.”  (Emphasis mine)

The operative word is ‘values of the audience’.  We just said the vision should not state the obvious.  Yet, it has to be made clear to the organization.  The logical way of doing this is to link it to the pre-existing values of the audience.  That is the insight of Kotter.  When the vision statement speaks the language of the commoner – whether customer or employee – when it is able to engage them, invoke in them the passion felt by the leader, connect with what they value already, that is when it would have served its purpose.  The word “invoke” is operative.  The idea is the audience needs to be able to see the vision the leader is talking about.  They should be able to convert the words into a visual of their own.  That is when a vision can be said to be communicated.  That cannot be done without passion and commitment.

Unfortunately, too many vision statements are filled with cliché and jargon to be able to relate to the real audience.  Visions like that of The Body Shop or Air Asia (Now everyone can fly) resonate with their chosen audiences – both employees and customers – precisely because they ‘stress the values of the audience’.

So, we have the development of the vision, which, to be effective, tends to be product / service / market / customer focused.  We then have its communication, which needs to connect with the existing values of the audience.  This, of course, is not a one-off activity.  To quote Kotter again, “Leaders also regularly involve people in deciding how to achieve the organization’s vision (or the part most relevant to a particular individual).  This gives people a sense of control.  Another important motivational technique is to support employee efforts to realize the vision by providing coaching, feedback and role modeling…”

Let’s see vision in action.  I think Zappos.com offers a great example.

To start with vision is not a statement for them.  Its just that – a vision.  So, on its website we see two vision statements!

In it’s ‘About Us’ page  you see the following text:

“So here is the vision:

• One day, 30% of all retail transactions in the US will be online.

• People will buy from the company with the best service and the best selection.

• Zappos.com will be that online store.”

Again, in a CEO letter dated 22 Jul 2009 , he says:

 “…our vision remains the same: delivering happiness to customers, employees, and vendors”!

That’s the beauty about real vision!  It is not about the words.  It is not a statement.  It’s the vision that is invoked.  That vision means several things.  Outstanding customer service?  Of course.  Happy employees?  Sure, that is what will make it happen.  But best selection also means engaging the best vendors.  So, you need happy vendors too!

So what happens to profits?  ROI?

Well, they have to wait!

Indeed, Zappos was passionate enough about the vision to stick to it all the way!  In July 2009, under pressure to deliver a return to Sequoia Capital and its other investors, the company announced it would be acquired by Amazon.com in an all-stock deal.  Tony Hsieh, Zappos’ CEO explained to his employees:

“…We plan to continue to run Zappos the way we have always run Zappos -- continuing to do what we believe is best for our brand, our culture, and our business. …it will be as if we are switching out our current shareholders and board of directors for a new one… We want to align ourselves with a shareholder and partner that thinks really long term (like we do at Zappos).”

We don’t get many stories like that.

Sri

www.sigmax-e.com

The Vision Thing - Taking a stab at it!

Having a “Vision” is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success.  
Not necessary, because there are hundreds of organizations that do not have a ‘vision’ – at least formally -- and have yet been hugely successful; the ‘dabbawalas of Bombay come to mind.  Similarly, there are an equal number of organizations ‘sporting’ elaborate vision statements that have not even taken off the ground.

In my view, a formal vision (statement) is a nice to have.  It certainly helps clear ambiguity, especially, if it is something different from the usual, “leader in our chosen market” type. 

Again, to me, vision is not necessarily the vision statement.  Let me give a notable example.  Here is what I found on the website of The Body Shop. 

“I just want The Body Shop to be the best, most breathlessly exciting company – and one that changes the way business is carried out. That is my vision.”  Anita Roddick. Human Rights Activist.   Founder of The Body Shop. 

That’s a great vision!  But, you may agree that statement, by itself, could hardly be credited with the success of the company.  To my mind, The Body Shop’s real vision is buried deep inside their “Values”.  It goes, “…we always strive to protect this beautiful planet and the people who depend on it. We don’t do it this way because it’s fashionable. We do it because, to us, it’s the only way.”  Building a ‘cosmetic’ company -- with all the baggage the word carries -- around such a value is the real vision; linking the near opposites of ‘cosmetic’ and ‘natural’. 

Visions come in at least two broad flavors.  Some talk about market leadership, growth, return to share holders, serving customers and the like.  In fact a quick review of a random hundred vision statements will reveal that most address such areas.  I call this category “Stab” visions.  (They take a stab at making a statement and they STAte the oBvious.)  When a vision statement states something inevitable, something that no business / organization can do without, that is a Stab vision.  I will go out on a limb and say that such vision statements are useless.  Dump them.  Remove them from your websites.

The other category is where they try to do something more (or less?) than the obvious.  Perhaps even instead of the obvious.  “We will strive NOT to please our customers” is a vision that would certainly fall under this second category!   More seriously, such visions are often product-driven.  They show a certain passion for the product, service or competence that is offered.  Sometimes, a different way of looking at the obvious. 

The recent news story about Café Rottenmeier in Tokyo, is a case in point.  At this café, all the waiters are "granny maids".  They have been selected through an open recruitment process seeking people, aged between 24 and 77, who "see themselves as grannies".  Besides serving their customers with a terse, unsmiling greeting, they even scold them for slouching on chairs or for not removing their coats!  And this ‘customer service’ has been drawing over 500 guests each day, besides huge viral publicity (to which, I now, wittingly contribute)!  Visions like “a PC on every desktop” fall in the same genre.  They reflect a passion, or dimension, for the product or service on offer – not the demands of share holders.

While a vision does not have to be ‘unique’, if it is not about your product or service, if it does not talk about addressing a different aspect (a novel insight?) of your customer behavior, you may be drifting into Stab zone.  

Sri

www.sigmax-e.com

Exit Interviews and Reference Checks

This post actually takes off from Rajan's comment on my last post, "When the good guys leave...".   I also use it as a segue to the related issue of Reference Checks.

First, to respond to Rajan: Your experience does (unfortunately) correspond with some of mine as well and it is definitely not too far off from what many have experienced.  But isn't that typical of any process that is done "half-heartedly" and without a clear understanding of it's value?  That's one reason, I believe it should be done by carefully identified interviewers.  These interviewers should not only be skilled in order to be able to flush out the facts but also have the courage to convey it to Management.
As for management using the new information; that's like any other input that Management receives.  It always has the prerogative to use the information it gets in any manner it thinks fit.  That is what, essentially, differentiates good management.

A Management that is serious about exit interviews will not only make sure it is conducted by skilled people, it will also ensure it tracks the feedback so received.  Of course, effective exit interviews cannot be termed ineffective just because no action was taken immediately.  Rather, good Management would not take action based on one interview.  I would say, just like customer feedback, information received from exit interviews too should be collated, verified and studied before taking action.

The "out of line" point is interesting too!  What does that mean?  If it is supposed to mean that what the exiting member has said is not in line with what Management has heard from others, that's one thing.  I'd say one needs to await a 'confirmation' of this new information.
But what if it is to mean that the exiting member is not in line with Management's thinking?  Irrespective of the specifics, I would argue it is better -- both for the organization and for the employee -- to leave if they are not in alignment.  For all you know, it could be the employee who is right.  But, as long as the Management is convinced otherwise,  it would be better for the 'un-aligned' employee to leave.  This alone will enable Management to pursue it's strategy or goal, full throttle.  Having said that, the exit interview would yet have fulfilled its purpose.  It gives an opportunity to the exiting member to vent his / her frustration and allows them to highlight their perspective to management and gives Management a data point to consider.  As these points accumulate, it could well lead them to change or modify their stance on the issue.  Provided of course, the entire process is managed with sincerity, i.e., with a conviction as to its usefulness and by capturing and tracking the information collected in the process.

A neat segue from this issue is the practice of doing Reference Checks.  I have seen so many companies that do this so perfunctorily that it could well qualify for axing the entire process.  Typically, this process involves an HR employee calling the candidate's referees and reading questions from a prepared questionnaire.   I have seen cases where this happens even after the candidate has joined, because the 'person concerned' was on leave or just too tied up with other duties.  In many cases, the interviewer receives no training -- or even a briefing -- on the impact of the process or how it is to be handled.  What is important is to file the neccessary forms in the HR file, to fulfill an "ISO certification requirement".

And yet, there are others who have gained meaningful insights into a candidate by asking pointed (and sometimes, even open) questions and pushing for a detailed response.  I recall at least two cases where imaginative ref-checks have resulted in clear benefits to the company.
In one situation I interviewed a 'grossly over-qualified' candidate.  He was certainly impressive and seemed to have all the right credentials for the vacancy we had.  The only loose piece was that he could well have gone for a higher-paying and bigger job.  I was quite desperate for a good candidate and decided to put aside my fears and short listed him anyway.  And then we did our usual reference check.  The referee was obviously a very busy person.  She pleaded she had no time for the interview.  She, however, quietly sent us an one line email referring us to a news report that went back a couple of years.  Following that link led us to the fact that the guy was practically a fraud.  His claims to 'ivy league' education being totally fabricated, as verified by the news paper with the concerned University.
The second case hardly qualifies as a ref-check in the conventional sense.  This is the practice apparently followed by Panasonic at some of is facilities... obviously Japanese inspired!

As the candidate comes in for the final interview, s/he is welcomed by a 'lower level' employee and ushered into the ante-room of the big boss.  As s/he waits to be called in, this employee strikes an innocuous conversation with the candidate.  How the candidate reacts to this 'intrusion' is actually carried verbatim to the Management and goes toward assessing their attitude toward lower level staff.  Very clever I thought!  Not very white or transparent, but I can see how it can be very effective.

The point is this: even a 'best practice' -- especially HR related -- is effective only if it is implemented with conviction and a due process is installed to make it happen consistently.  This includes developing and implementing a process as much as hiring and training the right people.  That -- like everything else ties back to Management.  It's style, it's convictions and it's willingness to learn.

Sri

www.sigmax-e.com

When the good guys leave...

Of all the miseries that can dog the pursuit of Operations Excellence, surely the worst is high attrition – good guys leaving!

I would rate it even above good customers leaving!


Firstly, it is a sign that employees have lost faith in management. It is an indictment that the top management is either totally unaware of the attrition (maybe they are not tracking the metric at all!) or they are in denial (no, it’s just a co-incidence) and basically, there is no plan to take any corrective action.
Now, of course, whenever new leadership takes position and ratchets up a sleepy culture, there is anxiety and people too accustomed to a ‘comfortable life’ will leave.   This is not the same as the attrition I am talking about here.  Of course, when undesirable people leave, it is great news…!  And if there are way too many of the wrong types in an organization, even all of them leaving is not such a bad thing to happen after all!
Yet, we would like them to leave in small lots, so customer service does not slip even further!

But attrition is not always ‘self-propelled’.  One, often-seen, situation is where a new competitor (any organization that is seeking the same kind of staff) has entered the market and is systematically attacking your company by making attractive offers to your staff that are too good for them to refuse.  How does one react to such a situation?

I have seen a variety of reactions from leaders.

One obvious strategy is to ‘lock-in’ your talent with either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ chains! 
Hard chains are essentially legal bonds, which require the employee to pay a large sum or give a very long notice, if they desire to leave the company. 
The long notice rarely works.  Which company would force an employee to ‘work’ productively, when s/he has already professed allegiance to another company, possibly a competitor?  Rather, many companies, on suspicion of an employee moving to a competitor, will ask them to leave immediately, lest s/he learn even more strategic / competitive secrets to be passed on to the new employer.

Monetary provisions do work to a certain extent.  Senior management candidates, who do not want to burn their bridges -- lest their sins come back to visit them in an ever shrinking world -- rarely try to jump bonds, unless of course, they have other legal reasons.  On the other hand, if the person is really good, many ‘acquiring’ companies are happy to pay-off the large sum.

Most companies today are experimenting with ‘soft chains’.  These are essentially incentives -- stock options and other deferred benefits – which are available only several years after they have been granted.  Of course, the effectiveness of these measures is largely dependent on the amount invested in these programs, as they increase the cost of hiring for the acquiring company.

Another option is to take the issue to an industry association / chamber of commerce-type entity, if there is one and hope they intervene.  I have seen this attempted several times, but have never seen it work.  The ‘attacking’ company always refutes the allegation and says, possibly correctly, that “We never target any one company.  We only use professional agencies to source our talent and then allow our brand / company reputation to do the magic!  If more from any one company are leaving, they should look at their HR policies, rather than blame any external entity!”

The fact is that whenever a new business is launched, it has no alternative but to source experienced talent from elsewhere.  Who has not done that?

I have trouble believing consultants and academics who say employees leave their managers when they do not find the job fulfilling and that money does not count beyond a certain limit.  The fact is that most companies are not so differentiated in terms of culture as to be able to charge a ‘premium’ for it in the form of lower wages.  This means most employees do not have a strong enough reason not to move to a company that pays more.  After all, they do have an obligation towards their family as well!  So, unless your employees just love their Monday mornings, don’t believe money is not important.

An idea whose time may well have come is to stay in touch with your ‘lost talent’.  Some companies have launched or encouraged the setting up of alumni groups on public access websites like Yahoo!, LinkedIn and Facebook.  These places can enable you to keep in touch with good people you know and woo them back.  In fact, should you have the vacancy still open, it is not a bad idea to get in touch with your talent a few months after they have experienced the new company.  Often, by this time, the reality of the new culture hits them and they are wondering if the move was after all a good decision!

There is another important point that is often overlooked.  When attrition levels rise, management’s attention invariable turn toward HR policies, or worse, the HR Manager!  This may not always be true.

Many times the root cause lies outside the HR policy.  We just saw how a change in market situation – the entry of a competitor can affect your attrition levels.  Another, often invisible reason is the slippage of practices and processes.  Established processes are allowed to go lax due to cost or work pressures and become habits.  Lack of metrics ensure that the slippage does not come to the attention of management at all.  Many examples come to mind:

• Delayed approvals of leave / expense claims and the like
• Delayed or even inappropriate hiring
• Performance Management (setting KPIs, providing feedback) becomes a mere formality
• Excessive hurdles in replenishing or supplementing staff strength
• Lack of effective orientation for new employees…

And yet, such is the nature of things that when things are going bad, they do tend to go a lot worse before getting better.  It’s much like a street that is a nightmare for traffic.  Whether this is due to pot holes on the way or just more traffic than it can handle, the act of repairing the road or laying a flyover itself causes things to go much worse during the implementation.

When an organization has lousy processes and staff is stretched thin in trying to keep the operations going, management has little choice but to re-engineer the processes and / or replace the systems.  However, this very act requires the best of talent to come together and invest huge amounts of time in the effort.  This in turn both exhausts the best people available and impacts customer service.

Faced with such a situation, many managements resist fixing the broken parts, arguing that time is not right to make such big changes.  Sometimes, this may be the right move.  But only if either the traffic is expected to recede or management has an alternate plan to divert traffic to an alternate channel / street.  Most often, however, this is just paralysis: morbid fear of things going even more wrong; without a concern for the long term or a strategy to fix things.

Good leadership, however, is rarely daunted by such a situation.  Great leaders are able to introduce a hitherto non-existing resource into the equation -- the excitement and energy brought in by a shared vision!  They are able to communicate effectively the unacceptability of the current situation, the shape and contour of a new vision and generate a wave of excitement and positive energy with that vision, at least in a small group of high performers.  It is this new energy that is used for fixing the processes and re-energizing the rest of the organization.

All said, you’ve got to accept that some employees will leave whatever you do.  The typical HR policy or practice is like a product.  It can meet the requirements of one segment of customers.  It is either ‘mainstream’ – meaning a little of everything, or ‘hard’ as in measuring everything in dollars or ‘soft’, i.e., you focus on providing a high quality work life and pay a little below the market.  There is no point agonizing over individual leavers, however valuable they may be.  What leadership should focus on is trends.
Once a trend appears, perhaps the first thing to determine is whether it is internally or externally influenced.  Keep in mind though that it is always convenient to point the finger outwards.  Perhaps, there is no better way of learning the real causes than a heart-to-heart exit interview.

If you have not done this before, here are some good ideas you should practice:

• Do not try to win the employee back.  It is too late
• Do not make it compulsory for the employee
• Choose the interviewer carefully.  At the least, the interviewer should be able to pierce the chill and get into a warm ‘personal’ conversation. 
• If the employee is senior enough or important enough, lock the time by going out for lunch or dinner.  It may be well worth it!
• Consider having one single, over-riding objective for the interview: to understand the real reason for leaving.
• Take his / her personal email / mobile. 

Sri

www.sigmax-e.com

Six Sigma - Physician, heal thyself!

Time for change!

Being trained as a Master Black Belt in six sigma and calling one self an operations professional has it's share of burdens. Like, you are expected to be a devotee, defender or even fanatic of the six sigma methodology.
But, the more leaders I meet, the more I am convinced that Six Sigma, at least as conventionally defined, has not moved with the times. In fact most leaders I meet exhibit a strong resistance toward implementing the system. Worse, they have some pretty logical reasons.

To me, therefore, it is clear the time has come for six sigma to undergo some 'continuous improvement'. Seriously.

First, it is so 1970s... so manufacturing. Consider for instance, this anal fixation on 'defects'. I think the credit has to go to Microsoft for bringing this whole concept that 'defects' are killers to its knees. Microsoft has demonstrated that you can not only survive with defects, in fact, you can thrive on them; make money off them! Moreover the Google generation has famously celebrated the concept of 'don't go for perfection'. Just launch it and tweak as you go. The point is, in today's web-world, defects do not seem to be as bad as they did a few decades ago.
With even great brand personalities blogging and tweeting and SMSing, spellings and grammar have gone out the door. With beta versions hitting the market, defects are factored into customer expectations. People have become far more forgiving of defects. The focus has shifted to overall value... experience. "Give me an exciting experience, something really cool! Its OK, if there are a few glitches, some random 'bugs' here and there. I can live with that." In fact, the very birth of these euphemisms for defects are a sign of social change. A "defect" sounds like a serious matter. A few bugs is entirely different!
Net, net, defect-free goods and services are so yesterday.

Now, of course, I have swung to an extreme to make the point. I am not arguing that defects do not matter any more. Sure they do. The point is that 'eliminating' defects is not the holy grail it used to be. Not in the information sector at least; or more specifically, not in the 'non-life-threatening' sectors.
In fact, in many day-to-day applications, the customer is happy to try out the new, untested gizmo - and pay top dollar for it - and junk the tried and tested equipment that was working absolutely fine. Classic six sigma does not address these trends.

Second, where's innovation? In DMAIC, the focus on eliminating defects is extreme! (there you go... another anal term. Merriam Webster defines elimination as "the act, process, or an instance of eliminating or discharging: as a: the act of discharging or excreting waste products from the body...").  It distracts form providing real, innovative value to the customer. Whatever brainstorming and innovative thinking takes place in a six sigma project is mostly focused on ways to remove the defects - not to add additional value to the customer or to enrich her experience. In fact, classic six sigma is also pretty weak on Moments of Truth - the study of customer experience at various points along the chain.  The focus is somewhat better in the case of DMADV / DFSS - the methodology for designing defect-free products and services.  But not by much.  Certainly not what the Gen-X / Gen-Y customer of today demands.

Third, consider employee morale, motivation and all those nice things. Lets admit it, if six sigma would have its way, it would have every worker work as much like a robot as possible. There would be standard operating procedures, designated tools for every task to be performed, designated areas (painted on the floor) for carrying out each task, detailed measurement of defects, dashboards showing all this data... one can go on. Certainly not a happy hunting ground for the Gen-X / Gen-Y, smart, high energy work force of today.

Some notable anecdotes...

• Robert Nardelli, used Six Sigma to take Home Depot to # 1 Retailer. Profitability soared – but at a cost. Gradually, worker morale drooped and customer sentiment followed. His successor, Frank Blake (also GE) is dialing back giving more lee way to Store Managers.
• Ann Fudge, (also GE), CEO, tried to sell Six Sigma to ad executives at Young & Rubicam – and flamed out quickly.
• Dave Carter is going slow with Six Sigma in its application to innovative processes at Raytheon. “Most Six Sigma practitioners are very strong on the left brain, innovation very much starts in the right hemisphere”

We have also seen the recognition of these developments in the emergence of variations like Lean Six Sigma, Service Sigma and many others. Many large corporates have recognized an innate aversion to six sigma in their teams and preferred to tweak it to suit their needs and even give it their own name.

• Dell for instance calls it "Business Process Improvement". The program, is a combination of Six Sigma, Lean, and Hoshin Planning.

• Honeywell has tweaked it too and calls it "Six Sigma Plus"

• At Johnson & Johnson, Six Sigma is just "Process Excellence".

These adaptations have retained the core philosophy and brought in various changes. But all these have just managed to confuse managers.

So, where does six sigma go from here?  What we need is a methodology that retains the core of six sigma - such as the DMAIC cycle, for instance and yet broadens the objectives and tools used to address changes in the market place.  IMHO, for Six Sigma 2.0 :

1. The focus needs to shift from elimination of defects to Customer Satisfaction (or Delight, if you please).
2. The methodology should address more than 'process improvement' or 'defect-free design'.  The DMAIC and DMADV cycles, and several other elements that are already within the scope of six sigma or can easily be borrowed, have the potential of being exploited on a broader scale.  For me, that larger scope is best summed up by the term 'problem solving'.
3. There is an urgent need to adapt it to the new generation that does not want SOPs! Today we have the most complex games, social networking websites and even PDAs that do not need operating manuals. Kids don't read books before playing the latest online games. They just begin!
4. A large tool-kit for creative thinking and for coming up with innovative solutions needs to be developed
5. The focus on assessing and understanding customer requirements needs to evolve into understanding customer behavior, underlying motives - even a bit of anthropology - to dream up the most convenient, most desirable solution and then search for appropriate technologies that can make it happen.  This will require a search for new tools and incorporating them in the right phase of the project.

You want to add something?

Sri

www.sigmax-e.com