Most everyone has read the maxim, “Plan your work and work your plan.” This is simple and effective advice—when it’s followed. Unfortunately, it can also be overwhelming when it comes to ensuring that everyone in the organization knows what the strategic plan is and how they can directly support it. Executives assume that creating strategic plans will automatically transform their organization and people; however, that’s often not the case.

About 11 years ago, I met with “John,” a president of a university. A few hours into our first meeting, beaming with pride, he handed me a beautiful, leather-bound strategic plan. His team, with the help of an outside consultant, had been meeting monthly for nearly a year, and at that point were a mere month or so from completing the plan. I thumbed through it quickly and said, “This is beautiful, John, and very well laid out. Tell me, what do you intend to do with it once it’s complete?”

“I’m not sure,” he replied, with a quizzical look.

During my more than 15 years of consulting, experience tells me that nearly 95 percent of strategic plans are shelved and collecting dust within six weeks of completion. Plans are easy to create, but on their own they don’t provide outlines for implementation. Further, without a way to modify behavior (and consistently measure it), you don’t have a strategic plan that will provide any sort of realistic ROI.

When it comes to strategic planning, quite often resources are allocated based on a very destructive misconception. You see, many well-meaning executives, and too many consultants, assume that the plan will execute, measure, and create sustained behavioral change by itself. Anyone who has spent a few years at the executive level knows that plans of any kind don’t implement themselves. Every year, however, executive teams go through the same ritual, taking time away from the office to review the strategic plan process. They tell themselves, “This year will be different—we will follow through.”

The intention and desire may be there, but the skills it takes to execute, measure, and create sustained behavioral change are very different than the skills it takes to create a document. This is where many executive teams run into trouble. I’ve found that about a third of executives intend to execute, and actually try for a month or two. Another third have good intentions but never seem to get around to it once they return to the office and face the onslaught of work. The final third never really intend to execute but keep this to themselves because it wouldn’t be politically safe to voice their real opinions. In this way, the cycle continues year after year with the best of “intentions.”

Earlier this year I spent three days with an executive team, helping to create their strategic plan. The first two days were filled with a gap analysis; an overview of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT); and the creation of an outline of their top five organizational objectives. We then highlighted specific departmental goals that would directly support the organizational objectives.

The third and final day of these meetings proved to be very different than anything the managers had experienced before. The first half of the day was extremely difficult for them because I pointed at team members and repeatedly asked them to tell me:
• Exactly what did they intend to do Monday morning to start the process?
• How did they intend to share the news with their staff?
• What priorities would they choose to drop to free up the resources necessary to achieve the new objectives?
• How would they create buy-in and coach their staff on how to execute? (In essence, how would their focus, skills, and behaviors differ from those of the past?)
• Specifically, how did they intend to measure behavioral progress and improvement after one week, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days?

I could feel the mood in the room change quickly, as their eyes and body language expressed everything from looks of doubt to slight panic. Much like that university president from years earlier, the attendees thought that plans automatically implemented themselves.

Outlining plans on what to do is one thing, but making changes to behaviors to achieve new goals is another. Following are the 10 actions we took in the weeks following the initial meeting to ensure the plan was executed, and that those plans would translate into new statements and behaviors that positively affected the internal and external customers:

1. Organizational and department objectives are there to be achieved, not merely aspired to.

2. Goals must be realistic. Choose no more than four organizational objectives and no more than seven department objectives that will directly support the organizational objectives. If these objectives require long timelines to complete, break them into manageable sections, and be sure to closely measure progress.

3. Have the discipline to say no to good opportunities that come along but don’t fit the strategic plan.

4. Know precisely how and when you will deliver the plan to employees. A good rule of thumb is to announce the plan to the broader organization within three days of returning to the office following the initial meeting. With this particular client, we decided that the CEO and each executive would meet with his/her departments and deliver the organizational objectives and a general overview of the department goals.

5. Begin executing quickly. In our example, within three days of the plan’s introduction to the rest of the company, the executive of each department met with his/her staff to refine the plan and own it. They challenged themselves and their teams to understand what needed to be adjusted or dropped to achieve the new objectives, and how to work differently and more effectively. Trust and communication are paramount at this stage.

6. Transfer tasks into behaviors. After these group discussions, the executive met with each of his/her direct reports to begin mapping out the work to be done.

7. Measure, refine, and improve. In the short term, i.e., within hours and days, measurements were put into place to monitor actions and help reinforce appropriate statements and behaviors.
• In terms of statements, this means what and how people are solving problems. Goals must be made clear, with specific timelines. Productive conversations are full of solution oriented cross-talk, and must be refined toward optimal solutions.
• In terms of behaviors, be sure to observe how people interact, where they look, where they sit, if they are rolling their eyes, and if they are visually engaged or reserved. Rely on your instincts, and filter them through the prism of solving problems and finding solutions, not politically or socially correct norms. Change can be difficult for people to accept, which is why facilitation and refinement of the goals are mandatory. People must have a sense of control over their lives, or they will rebel. On the other hand, people will support that which they help create. I’ve found that three days is a suitable time frame for people to come to terms with the goals. If the new direction isn’t being generally accepted within three days, then that resistance must be addressed and worked through quickly. Either you don’t have the trust you thought you had, or you have not properly facilitated the process. If those in the company haven’t fully bought into the plan by this time, and you ignore the situation, people will covertly or even overtly sabotage your efforts.

8. Be consistent. The executive team measured progress during the first week, and then at 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals thereafter.

9. Meet regularly. Initially, organizational objectives need to be balanced with daily and weekly tasks, or the stress to reduce the daily firefighting will slowly squeeze out everything else. This executive team held weekly meetings and decided that 25 percent of these meetings every other week would be dedicated to monitoring and working toward organizational objectives. The agendas generally addressed problems and successes as well as sharing how to gain buy-in and developing people. We discussed how executives could help one another. I made sure any deviation from the plan or timetable was relentlessly discussed.

10. Stay close. I coached each executive for 10 to 20 minutes each week regarding their professional development as it related to these goals, as well as on individual or group challenges. We created a plan and executed and measured progress weekly.

There should be direct line between organizational objectives, how department goals directly support the organizational objectives, and how individual tasks directly support the department goals. To be successful, all of these must be measured within clearly defined timetables, e.g., “Wednesday at 3 p.m.” not “in a couple of weeks.”

This whole process means nothing if it doesn’t result in improved statements and behaviors. Attention must be given to this process, or you won’t have a strategic plan—you’ll have a strategic illusion, and the chances of reaching your goals will be slim to none.

In my last article, I presented the psychological steps of change and how to overcome the natural human resistance to it. In this installment, I’ll present an example of how to transfer those concepts into plans, the plans into actions, and the actions into continuous behaviors.

This process might be considered as a look at the psychological underpinnings of plan-do-check-act (PDCA). This is important because leaders and managers are paid to take action and get results, and that requires people to improve and evolve.

Before management starts to improve a person, department, or manufacturing process, it’s a good idea to invite those involved to help solve the problem. Two vital things happen here: 1) Involving people suggests trust in their abilities, which inspires them and encourages confidence and creativity; and 2) Psychologically this makes everyone working to solve this problem part of the same team and removes the “us vs. them” dynamic that often plagues these types of “smart boss, stupid employee” misperceptions.

A manufacturing case study

Company ABC makes mining shovel teeth. Recently, hardness consistency had dropped to a point where 40 percent of product heated, treated, and quenched was either too hard or too soft, which cost the company about $115,000 a month in scrapped product and rework costs.

Management took a 10-step approach to investigating, implementing, and maintaining changes that would alleviate this situation, as follows:

1. Prioritize objectives. It’s necessary to choose one quality metric to measure and improve in a limited period of time (say a single month or quarter). In this case, management decided to look at improving the quench tank process over the next 30 days.

2. Determine target result. This requires specificity; management targeted an improvement in hardness consistency of around 400 and a reduction in scrap loss from 40 percent down to an acceptable 2–3 percent.

3. Asking, “How will improvement in this area help the customer?” Longer wear extends tooth life and provides a better return on the company’s investment. Brittle teeth break and go through the crusher, which halts mining production at a cost of anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 a minute.

4. Asking, “How will this help our employees?” Everyone is motivated by self-interest, so you must gain buy-in by tapping into how the process will make each employees’ life better. You can do this in two ways. For this project we first gathered management and the employees involved, and defined short-term vs. long-term benefits. We discussed that improving quality reduces rework in the long term but may require learning new steps or methods in the short term. After facilitated discussions the employees and supervisors understood this and were prepared for an adjustment period. It was important that we were honest and walked the workers through these steps so they could partner with us to solve these problems.

Second, we personalized the issue by asking if employees enjoy reworking teeth (i.e., by reforging and requenching them), finding storage within limited space, and reducing investment in better machinery (not to mention employee bonuses) due to extensive losses caused by these issues. This type of discussion between management and employees made the problems real and not something they could look past just to get “their” part of the job complete. Employees learned they were responsible for every step in the process as well as the finished product, not just the one stage they oversaw.

5. Review the actual methods used previously—not the “official” documented version but the actual, everyday methods. Gaining trust from the workforce is of paramount importance, and this step in the process shows you why. Initially, management experienced lying due to fear of reprisal (historically, supervisors would treat employees terribly), but after some facilitation, assurances, and honest conversations about the bigger picture related to quality, employees started to share honestly.

If people fear reprisal, they will lie about the numbers or actual methods, and you won’t be able to properly interpret the data and make the necessary adjustments. Human interaction and communication is reciprocal, and trust is the basis for open dialogue. Without trust you have no dialogue, but rather the simple, brute-force power that tends to be inherent in a typical management structure.

Here are two quick ways management decided to improve trust:
• We invited employees to help solve the problems. Employees often know more about the machine, product, or actual process performed each day than anyone else and generally have great ideas if management will take the time to ask—and listen.
• I encouraged management to admit mistakes. Employees knew when management made mistakes, and nothing destroys trust quicker than pointing fingers or accusing those who can’t stand up for themselves. Conversely, trust started improving when management took steps to accept responsibility for its mistakes. I coached managers to model the behavior they needed to see in their employees. This created the basis for a “learning organization.”

In our example, employees were busy and would often leave teeth in the quench tank while they did other work. As a result, teeth would stay in quench for anywhere from 4 to 30 minutes (the optimal time is 6 to 7 minutes). The control methods used up to this point were cell phones or a stopwatch hanging from a workbench, but the practice was inconsistent at best.

6. Create a concise plan and measure changes. Employees suggested that management purchase and attach a large, 12-in. numbered digital timer and buzzer to the quench tank with a remote control that they could set from the forklift. As employees did other tasks, they could easily monitor the quench-tank timer from a distance. It was a great idea, an inexpensive and easy way to correct the timing issue.

This improved the process, but then another issue was discovered. It was determined that the liquid used in the tank wasn’t being recycled efficiently enough, and therefore the temperature of the solution wasn’t consistent. This had been suspected and talked about between employees and management, but now management actually faced the bitter facts and invested in a better pump and recycling method.

7. Follow through consistently. Old habits can’t be stopped; they must be replaced by a new routine or “keystone habit.” In other words, the new habit or routine must be recorded over the old habit and positively reinforced consistently for it to become a permanent “keystone” habit. For the first 30 days after the new process started, employees and management monitored the process and results daily, making slight adjustments as needed to hit the target numbers. Successful heat ranges and hardness became consistent, and this helped to naturally reinforce the process and develop confidence in these habits as well as between employees and management.

8. Measure and refine. Be sure to monitor the new process daily, then weekly, and make adjustments as necessary.

9. Anticipate awkwardness. Until a new process becomes habit, workers as well as managers will be at risk of reverting to the old habit. I discussed this with the team and reframed mistakes as normal, emphasizing that they should be discussed so everyone could learn and improve. In our example, the department supervisor was trained and coached to see the big picture and choose product quality over sheer quantity as well as to provide employees with encouragement. In addition, management and workers discussed the organizational objectives together so they had buy-in. In this way, everyone came to see and understand the goal, and provided information that led to further reductions in costs and improved bottom-line results.

10. Debrief what worked and what didn’t, and refine accordingly.Debriefing about successes and failures is one of the most effective tools a team has to leverage organizational learning, and yet it’s the least used. People don’t have time to debrief for 10 minutes, but they seem to find time to replicate the mistakes numerous times each year. Management and employees debriefed the process and methods used, which were documented and put into protective plastic sheaths so they could be accessed easily on the shop floor. These documents aren’t written in stone: The search for better methods should always be encouraged and new processes documented accordingly.

It’s management’s role to improve the organization’s performance and make sure that new and better processes are vetted, adapted, and utilized. Getting buy-in for new steps needn’t be a challenge if these simple behavioral processes are kept in mind so that employees and management work together throughout the process from inception to implementation.

Challenges such as these can divide a team further, but if coordinated and facilitated properly, they can be used to steer organizations toward success. As a result of this challenge, the employees and management of ABC learned to discuss problems and discover solutions together. In addition they learned to struggle and work through differences, which helped them work toward a successful and profitable conclusion. These skills are now being used to help ABC address other challenges.

As a consultant and trainer specializing in the field of organizational psychology, I’ve come to realize that certain psychological conditions that affect individuals also apply to companies as a whole. That makes sense because, after all, a company is nothing but a collection of people.

In this series of articles, I’ll demonstrate how some of these common conditions manifest themselves in organizations, and how change agents can work in overcoming them to foster better communication and ensure higher levels of quality.

Overcoming resistance

To kick off this series, I’d like to focus on one of the primary emotional blocks that the change agent must confront: The deep-seated fear of and resistance to the very act of change itself. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection played out over the course of hundreds of millions of years, the world of business evolves at a much quicker pace. Therefore, I think we need to augment Darwin’s theory to read as follows: Survival of the fittest in business comes to those who are able to adapt and change quickly and effectively in spite of psychological, business and/or environmental obstacles.

To apply this principle, one must look much deeper than our primal ancestors and seek wisdom from within. This takes courage because there are always doubters who are poised to throw stones at the slightest perceived misstep, and every company has its share of political game players and other “posers.” The benefit to those strong enough to walk through their self-imposed fear and reach the next level of insight is that the personal, career, and monetary advances are often extraordinary.

I was hired years ago to consult with a company we’ll call ABC, an internet retailer. The CEO was capable but didn’t want to rock the boat, hurt people’s feelings, or take the chance of losing “good” employees who knew their jobs. Sam was the manager of production for the company. After assessing him and his department it was clear that Sam hadn’t evolved and grown along with the rest of the organization. His communication style was harsh and ridiculing, he played favorites, he had poor logistic skills, and his personal motivation was lacking. All of this trickled down to the people in his department, which resulted not only in the formation of a silo, but in a great deal of finger-pointing, too.

I met with Sam to help him become aware of these shortcomings and to develop improved skills, behaviors, and a better outlook. Sam was more defensive than many, but in most cases this dissipates as trust improves and the person realizes that professional development is normal and necessary. But Sam wasn’t capable of acknowledging his fears and evolving to the next level of his professional development, and ultimately the company let him go. He had confused years on the job with professional experience and development.

Sam wasn’t completely at fault. His previous employers and the current CEO were as much to blame as he. They failed Sam because they were trying to be respectful and avoid conflict, and often communicated their attitudes through vague direction, vague timelines, limited accountability, and inconsistent follow-up. In the end it was detrimental to Sam’s development, and it cost him his job.

John worked for Sam, and during my assessment phase he seemed to possess the right behavior and mindset to be a successful manager. John had a good work ethic, confidence, and humility; enjoyed and could handle responsibility; and understood the difference between strategy and tactics. When Sam was terminated, John received a promotion to become the new production manager. Among other things, I coached John about how to set clear expectations, encourage people, and hold them accountable—the first steps towards learning how to successfully delegate.

Nine elements of change

When introducing change of any kind, for people as well as organizations, one must learn to program the mind before moving on to action. Change starts in the mind and, if properly introduced, the body will follow with appropriate actions, statements, and behaviors. Learning the psychological stages of change will make the normal ups and downs easier to navigate.

There are nine elements of intentional behavior change. These elements, which I have adopted for my work with organizations and business, came from a concept originally developed by Joe Russo, stemming in turn from the work of James O. Prochaska of the University of Rhode Island and colleagues who, beginning in 1977, developed the transtheoretical model of psychology. These nine elements are as follows, as illustrated by the case of Sam and John:

1. Awareness. This is the first test, one which Sam flunked on multiple occasions. He was terminated because he could neither see his limited management skills and poor behaviors nor accept the responsibility to make appropriate changes. John, on the other hand, saw and accepted his limitations, which allowed him to learn and grow.

2. Dissatisfaction. John was dissatisfied with his current skill level and used this to fuel his hunger to learn.

3. Affirmation. People will often justify their present behavior as needed or valued, which prevents them from letting go of harmful behavior. For instance, Sam told me that “employees need to be yelled at to hit production numbers,” and he wouldn’t accept other methods for improving production. In contrast, John easily understood and valued input on how to involve employees to help improve production shortfalls.

4. Responsibility. When John made mistakes he was taught to be honest with himself and his employees. As a result, when John held employees accountable, although they may not have liked it, they respected him and the example he’d set. In time the “original mistake” was seen as normal growth rather than ridiculed, which leads to shame.

5. Personalized goals. John and I worked to improve his management skills and to align specific tasks with measurable results. We focused on properly executed employee performance evaluations to develop both the manager and the employee, where expectations were set and then followed up on periodically (i.e., at 30, 60, and/or 90 days), depending on the performance improvement issue being coached. Today, standard performance reviews are being phased out in many organizations, and evaluation and feedback often happens in real time, within the flow of ongoing work and processes. However it’s accomplished, it’s of the utmost importance that managers set ambitious but achievable goals, hold people accountable, and develop future leaders of the organization.

6. Demoralization. Frustration and demoralization can occur at this stage, when one discovers that the previous steps didn’t automatically produce change. There’s often a mental struggle going on inside the person’s head: One part wants to quit and go back to what’s safe, but the other part knows that working through this stage will ultimately lead to success.

7. Intention. One must be committed. W.H. Murray, of the Scottish Himalayan expedition to Everest, once said (quoting Johann Wolfgang von Goethe), ”Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness…. The moment that one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too.”

8. Action. One must take action; plan, execute, measure, refine, and re-execute.

9. Self-support. It can be a challenge to support oneself through the period of vulnerability that occurs right after one lets go of the old familiar pattern of behavior, and up to the point where one begins to feel secure with the new behavior.

The timing under which this intentional change might become actionable may require a week for an employee, or many years for an organizational restructure. However, the concepts remain the same.

John is now one of the “go-to” leaders at ABC. When problems happen in other parts of the company, John is sent to fix them. Why? First, because his department is self-sufficient due to the proper selection and development of subordinate managers. Second, because John knows how to face tough issues squarely and help people work through these normal yet necessary steps. Third, he is trusted by the CEO, his colleagues, and his subordinates.

John proved through the crucible of change that he had the right stuff to learn, to change, to grow, and to advance. Sam did not. Fear of change may be normal, but it doesn’t have to be accepted by the organization. Overcoming fear can lead to a bottom-up revolution of improvement and performance excellence.

This article was also published at QualityDigest.com

Bob Dylan and Frank Sinatra on Conversational Communication

I was sitting in the doctor’s office the other day and read an article about Bob Dylan. In his recent album he sings songs from the 20’s through the 40’s and refers to Frank Sinatra. Dylan shared what made Sinatra so great is that “he sang to you, not at you. He was able to get inside the song in a conversational way.”  I read that a week ago and it’s still on my mind. Like you, I am always looking for ways to improve my communication with clients, especially if you have been in your field a long time like I have. Bob Dylan has been an icon for a generation and yet he is still trying to learn how to “get inside the song and sing it in a conversational way.”

When was the last time you tried to communicate differently to your staff? Talk with them in a “conversational way,” understand them and listen more intently, speak with and to them rather than at them? When you have “told them ten times and they still don’t get it” it’s your responsibility as the leader and manager to improve how you speak with them so they do understand and are able to appreciate the message and “music” you are presenting.

Dylan and Sinatra are singing the same lyrics, how is it that one can come across so much better than the other? It’s a prime example of “it’s not what you say, but how you say it.” My suggestion for you is: For the next 3 days try a different form of communication and measure how the conversation changes. Listen more and ask questions, if you tend to take charge and speak a lot.  Conversely, if you tend to be quiet then I encourage you to step out of your comfort zone and share your ideas. Experiment with this and see what changes in you and how others relate to you. The joy of life is that we don’t have to stop learning, Dylan hasn’t. Have some fun and step out from your comfort zone and try making a different kind of music. Who knows, you may enjoy the song a lot more as well as the people you lead and manage.

Practical suggestion: I am sharing a method I have used for over fifteen years with outstanding success. It’s similar to a recipe, follow it precisely at first and you will get better results. Once you have successfully completed it a few times then adjust slightly to fit your personal style. First, choose two people you want to have an honest conversation with but have failed to out of fear or failed past attempts. Next, choose the easier of the two.

Collaborative Development Improvement Suggestions

9 basic steps.

1. Make a list of 2-3 points for each of these questions:
   1. What is going well between us?
   2. What isn’t? e.g. where do we drop the ball?
   3. What is each person’s suggestions for improving it? If we were to try one of these suggestions, how would this improve our working relationship and the customer experience, performance, production creativity etc?
   4. If we were to mutually work on just one of these how might our performance and working relationship improve our department or company in the next 30 days?
2. Go to that person and say “I’ve been reading about leadership and management development and I would like to try something with you, is that OK? It may put both of us out of our comfort zone and may sound crazy so I suggest we approach it like an “experiment.” Are you game? Ask them to make the same list and provide answers prior to the meeting. Schedule a one hour meeting for 2-4 days out (no sooner or later).
3. When the person arrives into your office its best if both of you sit at the chairs in front of your desk. Do not have a table between you. Yes, one of you will likely make a joke about this being a therapy session. Just laugh it off and say I’m following the author’s recipe. Reiterate, “it’s just an experiment so it doesn’t really matter; let’s give it a shot.
4. The leader goes first and reads his first statement from what is going well. Then the employee reads his/hers statement which closely mirrors the one the leader gave. If neither re close, choose the easiest. Using examples, discuss and debrief how the tow of you are able to achieve success in this particular area.
5. Next go through the list of what is not going well. Obviously this is tougher and so you will need to reassure this person that this is an “experiment” so we both need to try new things which may be a bit uncomfortable.
6. You go first. Read it your answer. Have them read the closest answer they have to it or choose the easiest topic between the two. Discuss and debrief. Does it relate to what is being done (a task or goal), or how it’s being done (the method, steps or stages) break these down. And discuss them. Don’t make any decisions, just discuss for creating awareness.
7. Continue the process for each section.
8. Collaborative communication is the main point to this experiment. e.g. How can I help you be successful and how can you help me be successful. This will start to refine and improve your teamwork and working relationship.
9. Sticking points. If the topic conversation doesn’t go well, you probably don’t have a communication issue, you probably have a trust issue. The leader must encourage the subordinate to speak honestly to uncover how the distrust started. The leader must listen without judgement

Please contact Kelly@InternalBuisnessSolutions.com  for additional information or call: 530.321.5309.

August 2013

A Brief Overview on Leaders

August 2013

August 2013

August 2013

August 2013

This article was written back in 2007 in the beginning of the recession, its principles still apply today.

What do organizations, such as those in the publishing industry, need to do to ensure survival, readership, and jobs for their people and provide a service to their communities?

August 2013