The Change Agents' Handbook
Frequently Asked Questions
Some questions that people have asked after reading the book
Questions
- The requirements to be a successful change agent seem very daunting. Are these realistic?
- Is a crisis required to make significant change feasible?
- Do we really need to set up a "Quality Council"?
- You didn't say much about ISO9000. How does this fit in?
- Is creating a mock Baldrige submission a good way to conduct an initial assessment?
- How can I get credit in my annual performance evaluation for the 'soft stuff' (i.e. bringing about cultural change)?
Discussion
The requirements to be a successful change agent (Chapter 1) Seem very daunting. Are these realistic?
You are right: parts of this chapter paint a daunting picture. But remember, this guidance is also aimed at the President or whoever is selecting a candidate for this role. It is a common mistake to select someone who is readily available (but may not have the personal attributes) and to expect this individual to read a book and be an expert within a few weeks. This approach just isn't realistic for such a demanding role.
This chapter is designed to encourage the President to think carefully about this appointment, to value the role, to pick a capable candidate, and to give this individual the necessary time and support to master their new job. So it does emphasise the challenge and the range of skills and knowledge that a change agent should develop.
But remember, we all had to start from where we were at the time – and everyone who has ever done this job started out at some point knowing practically nothing about what they were getting into.
If you are still feeling inadequate, then review:
- "Learning on the Job" (Pages 19-21) and
- "Real-Life Experience – The Agony and the Ecstasy"
(Pages 258-274).
Is a crisis required to make significant change feasible? This seems to be the implication of Chapter 2.
Is a crisis necessary to create enough energy to drive significant change? It depends upon the leadership. Many highly successful organizations have avoided complacency and maintained an awareness that constant effort is required to stay in front. This is what keeps them going. Two good examples are:
- Microsoft: Bill Gates is acutely conscious that in this fast-moving market someone else could do to Microsoft what Microsoft did to IBM.
- Intel: Andy Groves entitled his book "Only the Paranoid Survive". That says it all.
On the other hand, sometimes when complacency has set in, even a crisis doesn't have any effect until it becomes so serious that denial is impossible. General Motors during the late 1980s was a classic example of this phenomenon.
The key point is that the leaders must perceive a compelling reason for change, whether this takes the form of an opportunity or a threat. People who win Olympic sports medals see compelling reasons to undergo grueling practice for hours every day. Other people can't see any compelling reason to shift off the couch until told by the Doctor that this lifestyle is killing them. "Compelling", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
So it doesn't need a crisis -- it just needs a leader who is convinced that the status quo just isn't good enough, and who can convince others.
Do we really need to set up a "Quality Council"?
It depends. First of all, the name used is irrelevant, and the term 'Quality Council' may feel dated or inappropriate in your organization. The key issue is whether the top management team needs to establish a new forum to work on improvement issues, separate from their existing roster of management meetings. This is a judgement call, but you can approach this decision by considering what can be accomplished within the current meeting structure.
If all of the current meetings are very short-term focused, reactive or unstructured, then it may be impossible to accomplish what you want in such a setting. This would be rather like trying to have a family discussion about an important career decision -- but doing this during breakfast when everyone is rushing to get to work or school on time. You must create a setting where people can focus on a longer term agenda, take the time to absorb new ideas and information, and make some carefully considered decisions about where they want to take the organization.
If a new forum is established, this often proves to be a temporary arrangement. As the improvement process gets under way, ongoing monitoring and support is integrated into the regular management reviews, and planning for improvement is integrated into the normal planning process. Once this has been accomplished, the Quality Council has accomplished its purpose -- and has put itself out of business. Of course the disbanding of the Council does not demonstrate success unless a structure has been created to drive continuous improvement forever.
You didn't say much about ISO9000. How does this fit in?
ISO9000 standards can valuable as a tool for establishing some process discipline, and can be a useful stepping stone towards continuous improvement. However, these standards have been over-promoted by some consultants and auditors, thus creating unrealistic expectations and then inevitable disappointment. The result is a backlash, and a camp that argues today that ISO9000 has no merit at all. This is rather like watching people play tennis with golf clubs and then criticizing the clubs for the poor serves and volleys.
The ISO9000 standards have very specific (and limited) aims which they do accomplish. When used properly they can help to structure a system of documentation and process control -- thus providing a base on which to build a system of continuous improvement. However, when badly applied, these standards can be used to create unnecessary documentation, to perpetuate inefficient processes, and to lock the organization into a straight-jacket of bureaucracy.
See After ISO9000 Registration for a brief explanation of the difference between compliance standards and continuous improvement.
The initial assessment seems a critical step. Is creating a mock Baldrige submission a good way to do this?
Baldrige (or an equivalent) is an ideal instrument for this self assessment. However, the awards adjudication process was not designed as a planning methodology. So to obtain the full benefit you need to make some changes and additions. For example, you need:
- a way of engaging the executives up front and securing their commitment to support the process -- and to act on the findings
- a method of identifying the 'vital few' improvement actions that will have the greatest impact on performance, and building a strong consensus around these
- a process for developing detailed plans and ensuring follow-through.
When properly designed, the self assessment process is the most powerful method that I know for creating an improvement plan while building the commitment and consensus required to follow through during implementation.
My second book 'From Baldrige to the Bottom Line' is about how to use this powerful and valuable process.
How can I get credit in my annual performance evaluation for the 'soft stuff' (i.e. bringing about cultural change)?
First of all, for you to be successful (as well as to get a good performance evaluation) it helps a lot if your manager understands from the outset the 'soft' aspects of what you are both trying to accomplish -- and how big a challenge this may be. If you can achieve this kind of understanding at the start, you are more likely to get the kind of support that you need. Discussing 'soft' performance goals can only help.
As to how you describe these goals, I think that it may be difficult (and perhaps dangerous) to be too specific or quantitative. My strategy would be to have a broadly defined 'soft stuff' goal, and agree in advance what types of specifics this might include.
For example, the goal might be "help to bring about a shift of management thinking and behaviour, consistent with quality principles". When you sit down at the end of the year to do the performance review, you might offer the following types of specifics:
- the organization's values have been defined, leading to a clearer understanding of desirable and unacceptable behaviors
- many people have grasped the quality principles, and consequently certain common myths are no longer accepted (e.g. that improving quality increases costs)
- the agenda of regular management review meetings has been changed to reflect a greater focus on customers, processes, people
- when making important decisions, managers more often consider the impact on customers
- rather than blaming individuals for problems, managers more often seek data and to look for systemic causes
- most meetings now start and end on time, and it is considered bad practice not to distribute an agenda in advance
- it is more common for good work to be recognized and commented on, formally and informally
- there is visibly improved teamwork and cooperation among the management team
- the employee survey indicates an improvement in... (questions related to company culture, management behavior).
Using this approach, your manager has to make a subjective judgement regarding how significant these achievements are, but this is probably better than having no 'soft' goal at all -- or one that is so specific that it becomes a straight-jacket.
There is also a discussion of intangible goals on page 256 of The Change Agents' Handbook.
More Information
- Table Of Contents
- Chapter Summaries
- Readers Comments
- Frequently Asked Questions
- An Excerpt
- Ordering Information