I just watched the Inauguration of President Obama on TV and I surprisingly found it to be a very moving ceremony. The historic significance of Americans electing their first African American President is actually almost beyond words. You could almost feel the weight of history as Barack Obama mentioned that he was "the son of a man who may not have been served in a local restaurant only a few decades ago and was now taking the oath of office to the Presidency". I couldn't help but think of the struggles and sacrifices of so many people and appreciate how much has changed for the better in the United States in such a relatively short period of time.
It is therefore very fitting that his Presidency should be carrying the flag of change and will hopefully inspire organizations all over the USA to be proactive and embrace change as an opportunity to benefit all.
How will it be achieved? How can organizations overcome resistance and inertia? The reality is that changes of strategic direction and changes to processes are impossible without cultural change.
Healthcare alone is a gargantuan task and Tom Daschle really has his work cut out for him. I think changing the Healthcare System in the USA is infinitely more difficult a task than that set out by John F Kennedy when he announced his intention of putting a Man on the Moon by the end of the decade. The reason that was easier is that there was little resistance to the idea. Many may have thought it impossible but they were not opposed to trying. Changing the Healthcare system would be easy if you could eliminate the resistance that you will get from many of the thousands of people already employed by it and those who are currently well served by it. Many of these people already feel that there is little to improve on and therein lies the problem.
The variable combinations of apathy, complacency and self preservation are not new to the many organizations who have tried to initiate significant change. Some succeed and many don't. Those who do succeed have not simply changed their processes but they have changed the attitudes of their people. They have developed the leadership skills to involve people in the development of solutions and created teams that really work together. They have succeeded in learning how to listen to each other. They have recognized that the best consultants they could have are already working for them. They have not been scared to empower these individuals and they have encouraged them not to be afraid to try even if it goes wrong.
To achieve this means going beyond outdated initiatives like Lean and Six Sigma that were process focused and not people focused. These approaches are too complex and cumbersome for a country and its' institutions that need to move fast, improve performance, measure the improvements and stand accountable. The economic situation, the safety and the success of our Military, the security of our borders and the provision of affordable healthcare depend upon the agility of their people to embrace an objective and work together to develop and implement the solutions.
I wish for President Obama the very best success and hope that he can inspire the degree of change that made his Presidency possible.
I read your comments with interest. While I'm not sure Lean and Six Sigma are dead, they do seem to flopping like a flounder on deck. My experience with client systems indicates that the highly structured, statistically oriented, internally-focused process improvement approaches tend to succeed in driving out waste and lowering costs often to the detriment of cross-functional cooperation and customer satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases, I have observed the unintended result of an enthusiastic focus on Six Sima, Lean, or other similar statistically oriented process improvement initiatives to have been creation or reinforcement of the dreaded "silos" both within the organization and between the company and its customers and vendors. Unfortunately during these times of heavy pressure to fight cost increases and become more efficient, these approaches do have appeal.
Remarkably, I have also observed organizations that seem convinced that focusing exclusively on high involvement, high engagement strategies for internal and external "customers" is the cure all. Silos break down, satisfaction goes up, engagement is measurably better but, all too often, profitability suffers.
The organizations that seem to get it right leverage high involvement and engagement to focus on the right statistically measured and managed targets. It is these organizations that see able to achieve sustained profitable improvement and growth.
Measurable Management, when supported at the top of the organization by executives who simultaneously demand that employees, customers, vendors - people throughout - be engaged by treating them with respect and valuing their contributions and that keep the focus on performance by clearly setting measurable targets and strategies that produce productivity and profits, seem to strike the right balance. It seems to this humble consultant that any approach that does not adequately balance genuine attention to both People and Process is likely to create an imbalance and is not likely to achieve sustained change and improved performance.
Ken Mayer
The Mayer Group, Inc.
It seems that Healthcare is already running into resistance with the rejection Of Tom Daschle's nomination.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Ken. I agree wholeheartedly with you about striking the right balance between People and Process. Many Six Sigman initiatives start with enthusiasm then as they realise that they could get even better results with improved leadership and team building skills they circle back and try to bolt on training to address these issues. In my experience aftermarket accessories are never as good as those that are built in at the factory so to speak.
ReplyDelete