Stalling the Engine of Success – When Ego Trumps Data

By Ahunt at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

(Also published on LinkedIn Pulse here)

The phone rings, you pick it up and hear the voice of the company's Chief Operating Officer saying, “Come see me, I need to talk to you immediately.”

You drop what you’re doing and rush down to the boss’s office.

“I’ve got a project for the process improvement team,” he says as soon as you enter his office. “Our operating costs are rising faster than revenues.”

He proceeds to tell you what the problem and solution are, then pats you on the back and says, “Get your process improvement team together and get to work on the solution we talked about.”

While this is not an uncommon approach, this experienced leader is missing some key ingredients for effective process improvement and change management.

Over the years, I have been part of numerous process and quality improvement initiatives. Shepherding one through to successful completion is not easy. In fact, less than 65% of projects succeed, and of those that do, many are significantly over budget and fail to meet projected results.[1] 

A big reason for this is lack of adequate root cause identification, lack of organizational support, and an abundance of organizational resistance. Over the years, I have heard many explanations for individual resistance to change initiatives. The most common points seem to revolve around several main themes:

• “They talk about empowerment but don’t really mean it.  I tried the suggestion system, and no one listened.”
•  “All they want to see is a bunch of pretty charts that don’t really mean anything.  If they want to know what is going on, why don’t they just listen to what we have been telling them?”
•  “They don’t really ever take time to understand our processes and our problems.  They just sit in their office and come up with ideas that do nothing but make our lives harder.”
•  “They’re just changing for change’s sake.” or 
• "If it ain't broke, why are they fixing it?"

My years of training and experience in project management have given me a strong appreciation of the core principles of process improvement, the insights of the “Gemba” (those most directly involved in the processes), and the power of data. Information is the fuel modern, high performing organizations run on and these are its primary sources. Without information, progress stalls and resistance builds. 

However, surprisingly few organizations tap these powerful resources.

Today every desktop and most smartphones have the capabilities and tools to unlock the power of data, which 25 years ago was only accessible to statisticians and supercomputers. Furthermore, the number-crunching abilities of spreadsheets like Microsoft Excel and process improvement suites like Minitab have democratized data analysis and provided much more powerful tools for root cause analysis and problem-solving to anyone willing to spend the time to learn them.

More critically, the institutional knowledge of an organization has always been a largely untapped resource. With information restricted to silos and not generally accessible, organizations are leaving one of the most powerful sources of innovation untapped.

Together, data and the knowledge of the Gemba are powerful resources – if we will only trust what they tell us. In aviation, spatial disorientation is a serious situation and the cause of many accidents. This occurs when the pilot, usually during times of low visibility, loses track of the plane’s position relative to the earth’s surface. This becomes fatal when the pilot trusts on their own instincts and ignores what their instruments are telling them.

Similarly, when leaders ignore the data produced by their operations and the input of those most familiar with the processes, it can lead to serious leadership disorientation resulting in operational and financial inefficiencies and even disaster.

It’s not that intuition and experience are useless, leadership disorientation sets in when instincts and judgment are not validated against the instruments of facts and solid data analysis. In this state, they may miss key indicators that can point out additional or even true root causes. Until root causes are determined, it is impossible to find an effective solution.

No one knows everything, not even the boss. By eliciting input from all stakeholders involved, we learn more about the processes, real root causes, why things are currently done the way they are, issues with the current process, and possible solutions to the problems at hand.

Furthermore, soliciting input from stakeholders is more than data collection. Study after study has shown inclusive change management succeeds far more often than solutions dictated from the on high.[2] An inclusive approach not only addresses the common objections to change listed above, it also increases the pool of experts and points of view, making effective solutions much more likely and organizational buy-in much more probable.

Additionally, while senior leaders do not necessarily need to be Master Black Belts, Scrum Masters, or Project Management Professionals, an understanding of the principles of process improvement, project, and change management is essential. Project managers should take the lead in helping them understand basic principles and their roles in these processes. They should teach them that while an engaged and unified leadership approach is key to a project’s success, micromanagement and intellectual arrogance may muddy the waters and lead to missed cues and inadequate solutions.

Leaders, on the other hand, must understand the contribution accurate data analysis and subject matter experts play in identifying root causes and enhancing their ability to formulate solutions to address them. While gut instinct, education, and experience are key in reading the situation and input to root cause analysis, leaders who champion transparency during change, trust and truly empower their people, and build open communication channels will find their understanding of organizational processes, problems, and solutions increase. Having the objective data that not only confirms their initial understanding of the situation but also taking into account information, which contradicts it improves the quality of their decisions and may even prevent grave mistakes.

Finally, while traditional incentives play a part in motivation, most workers want to feel valued and want the company to succeed. When they feel their opinions are valued, even if they are not always accepted, they will feel they have a stake in the organization’s success and will be the eyes and ears on the ground the leadership needs to make the best possible decisions. However, they can only do this if they are comfortable in sharing the insights and expertise you may lack and providing the solutions you may have never considered.

While the leader always maintains accountability and is often the only person in the organization that sees the entire picture, letting go of their ego and being willing to “trust the instruments” and facilitate open and transparent communication throughout the organization will improve the quality and organizational acceptance of their decisions. Employees will understand the rationale and feel invested in the decisions.

Data, whether from processes or from people is the fuel that high performing organizations run on. Don’t let your ego clog the lines and stall the engine of progress.

[1] International Project Leadership Academy. Facts and Figures. 2016. 12 January 2016. <http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=1445>.
[2] A few examples are:

•      International Project Leadership Academy. Facts and Figures. 2016. 12 January 2016. <http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=1445>.
•      Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of change Management, 4, 193-115. 
•      Mirvis, P. H., Sales, A. L., & HackeR, E. J. (1991). The implementation and adoption of new technology in organizations: The impact on work, people, and culture. Human Resource Management, 30, 113-139. 
•      Ferguson, E., & Cheyne, A. (1995). Organizational change: Main and interactive effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 101-107.Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 508-514. 
•      Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 4859.