The attacks on government workers that (in)famously began with Reagan’s oft-repeated crack that “government IS the problem…” were wrong then, and wrong now.  It is possible that government, with tougher procedures for discipline and dismissal, has a slightly higher percentage of ineffective workers than the private sector.  But not much.  Moreover, government has proven repeatedly that it can be as good as any business in achieving high levels of performance and service excellence.  Ironically, it was the Reagan Executive Order in 1987 that really helped usher in the Federal improvement era.  I worked with a Department of Labor team on those first mandated inquiries about “quality” and “productivity” in the Wage and Hour Division.  That set us up for the quality improvement work that I began for the DOL in 1989.
My experience with the Federal Quality Improvement movement taught me two very important lessons:  1) government can apply the methods of sustained process improvement as well as anyone; and 2)memories are short, once the agenda at the top changes.  The winners of the Federal improvement awards (including Wage and Hour in 1993) achieved remarkable results.  But who today, would think of NASA or the IRS in the same sentence as “operational excellence” or “customer service excellence?”  Yet they were both multiple award winners in the 1990s.
Today’s Federal workplace is amazing.  My recent visit to my former DOL office in New Jersey reflected the massive wave of change that is affecting the agency and the government.  Retirements of our Baby Boomer generation are generating the next great wave of public service hiring.  People with more and better education than ever before.  People with the intelligence to command the mission of our agencies, and the determination to see the results.
In the private sector, firms like Gore and P&G have done remarkable work tapping both their workforce and their customers to drive innovation.  The public sector is no different.  Government 2.0 is leveraging the same crowd-sourcing and social media technologies as the best in the private sector.  Around the world, government employees are achieving sustained improvement.  The methods of Lean Six Sigma, developed in the private sector, are being used at all levels of government to drive progress.  The DoD is engaged in the largest Lean initiative in the world.  Through my work with the Government Division of ASQ, we are collecting a harvest of success stories from government globally- outstanding results in Georgia, Iowa, Connecticut, Washington, Madison, Wisconson, Canada, Wales, and dozens more.
Yesterday’s New York Times had a front-page story about the new administration in New York, and the likely battles they will have with public employee unions.  It is all too easy to demonize  a person or group when we do not understand them, and fear they may have more power than we do in a tough situation.  Needless to say, this isn’t the case with public employee unions.  At the Federal level, unions can not bargain over pay or benefits, and they can not call strikes.  What all unions do, is collectively represent the interests of their constituents.  The terms of performance appraisals and discipline, make up the bulk of Federal union work.  Of course, the public are too quick to falsely believe that government unions somehow unilaterally forced management to sign agreements for big raises and fat pensions.  The public ignores the very obvious fact that all labor-management agreements are signed and agreed to by BOTH sides.  No one makes deals they believe will create fiscal crises in the future.
We are experiencing massive and fundamental change in our economy and society.  The system by which tax revenues were generated and passed down to various jurisdictions to support public programs, is broken.  Cities and States are in fiscal turmoil that may last for years.  There is no question that significant cuts in government programs and employment will occur.  We must vigorously resist the temptation to seek a scapegoat, and assign blame.  There is no large-scale “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government.  There are overwhelmingly people who do their best every day.  Our nation needs an open and honest debate about what government it wants and needs, and how to pay for it.  Instead of criticizing alleged “big government,” seek the leaders who want to pursue “right-sized government.”
The greatest observer and scholar of the workplace that I know of, was W. Edwards Deming.  With regard to unproductive workers, he always asked executives “do you have dead wood?” Then, “did you hire them that way?” Game over.  No one knowingly hires an unproductive worker.  But the many poor systems of work destroy people’s ability to make meaningful contributions.
Our government workers want the same things as anyone else- a sufficient income to have a home, the means to raise a family in a nurturing community, a comfortable retirement, and pride in the achievement of their efforts on the job.
Onwards,
Bruce

Bruce Waltuck co-created the award-winning Quality and Process Improvement system for the U. S. Department of Labor.  He was a negotiator and signer of the DOL’s labor-management agreement in 1991, the first completely interest-based, consensus agreement in the U.S. Federal sector.  Most recently he served as Senior Advisor for Process Improvement, to the head of an agency in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  He has taught and presented to nearly 20,000 people throughout the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Southeast Asia, on issues in leadership and organization improvement.

Posted on January 4, 2011 by complexified | 1 Comment

The public’s interest: Support for the Baldrige Excellence System

Posted on December 14, 2010 by complexified

First, the up-front disclaimer.  The American Society for Quality, has asked me to participate in their new social media initiative.  I am one of a number of people identified as “Voices of Influence.”  For those who follow such things, I have been a leading voice on the evolving work of quality, process, and organizational improvement for over a decade.  My work has been published in the Journal for Quality and Participation, Quality Digest, and more. It has been my privilege and pleasure to have taught and presented throughout the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Southeast Asia, on the work of quality and process improvement.

So, ASQ has asked me to occasionally post here, in response to posts made by Paul Borawski, ASQ’s Executive Director. We do not agree on all of the issues confronting ASQ and the global quality movement, and I think that is a good thing.  It is through the diversity of our thinking, that new ideas and opportunities emerge.

To get the legal bit out of the way, here is the disclaimer that I am supposed to share with you about my participation in this ASQ effort:

I’m part of the ASQ Influential Voices program. While I receive a variety of quality resources as honorarium from ASQ in exchange for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.

OK, that takes care of the legal bits.  On to the real issues at hand.

The Malcolm Baldrige system to assess and recognize business excellence has been with us since 1987.  Note that I have very deliberately NOT used either the words “quality” or “award” in my initial description.  This is, in my view, critical to understanding the true nature of Baldrige, and its ultimate value to the nation.

At the time it was created, American business was reeling from foreign competition, primarily from Japan.  After World War Two, Japan’s business leaders took the teachings of Deming and Juran to heart, and focused on continuous business process improvement.  As they listened to Dr. Deming, they drove down costs, and improved quality for their customers.  The philosophy and methods of process improvement became central to the values, management, and daily practice of these successful Japanese businesses.

So in the late 1980’s, as American businesses also turned to Deming, Juran, Crosby and others for help, the art and practice of continuous process improvement took center stage in America (for a while).  The central focus of Deming and Juran’s teaching was understood to be the emphasis on improved quality.  So it was not surprising that the process improvement as a whole, got labelled as the “Quality” movement.  Ford proudly proclaimed that “Quality is Job One.”  For a while, it was.

In government, following a Reagan-era mandate to study options for quality and productivity improvement, the focus also turned to quality and process improvement.  In the late 1980’s, the Federal Quality Institute was created to teach and encourage the use of these improvement methods in the public sector.

The Baldrige system was America’s response to the need for an INTEGRATED SYSTEM TO IMPROVE BUSINESS PROCESSES AND RESULTS.  Yes, it is true that there is also a system for assessment and recognition of achievement.  But this is not, and never has been, the reason for Baldrige to exist.  Baldrige has evolved over the years to reflect our best thinking on a measured, rigorous approach to deploy improvement methods throughout organizations, and improve results.  The Baldrige system notes the dynamic links between leadership, business process improvement, workforce engagement, and of course, measured results.

We can argue the impact of the Baldrige system over the years.  But it is easy to see the positive impact in many places.  I happen to live in a town with a Baldrige-winning hospital.  They proudly advertise their success with improvement efforts in every one of their ads.  They continue to do things that I have never seen in any other hospital, to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.  Leaders of the hospital have spoken at conferences all over the country about their journey towards improvement excellence.  Others hear the message, and explore the options for their own organizations.

The issue in the news recently, was the question of continued Federal funding for Baldrige.  Here’s my take on the matter:

1)Do we believe Baldrige is of value to the nation?  In my view, a resounding yes.  Many states have created their own versions of the Baldrige framework, and spread the value of continuous process improvement to their own constituencies.  We have seen data that Baldrige-recognized businesses have outperformed the S&P 500 in market value.  Correlation isn’t causality, but it is likely that Baldrige matters.  Today, America is again faced with massive foreign competition in manufacturing and service sectors.  Government is viewed as often ineffective or unproductive.  We need only look back a few years to the 1980s and 90s to see the gains made in all sectors during the heyday of the Quality Improvement movement.  Baldrige and other similar methods WORK.

2)Do we believe that Baldrige should be publicly funded?  In my view, of course.  How else can we assure objectivity and neutrality?  If we want the best minds to produce the best thinking for all, we need to provide a safe and open environment for that to happen.  Baldrige is such a system.  It WORKS, and its leaders keep making it better.  The amount of money to fund Baldrige is tiny in the overall budget.  The return on this investment is provably significant, many times over.

Is Baldrige the right approach for every organization?  Probably not.  It is comprehensive and rigorous when done right.  There is a reason that many of the state awards created progressive levels of recognition, with lower threshholds of achievement than the Baldrige system.  But as a guide to become the best, Baldrige provides a truly valuable system.

May the bright light of the Baldrige framework for Excellence continue to illuminate our way for many years to come.

Bruce Waltuck

Posted in ASQ, Continuous Process Improvement, Government Improvement, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Con-fer-ence: the art of intending what you’ll do together

Posted on November 16, 2010 by complexified

Recently I attended a conference as a presenter.  It occurred to me that I have been doing conference presentatins since 1980 (NY State Association of Rehabilitation Facilities- on Federal law regulating employment of disabled persons).  Over the past 30 years, I have been privileged to present at conferences throughout the United States and Canada, as well as Brazil and Singapore. 

Without naming any names, here are a few suggestions for conference organizers:  

>Presenters should NOT have to pay registration fees for the conference.  Especially when the presenter is paying their own travel cost to get there.  Even a “discounted fee” for your presenters is not very nice.

>Make sure your check-in desk staff have been properly trained to give friendly and welcoming customer service.  Failing to give registrants their conference folders is not really acceptable.  When your attendees note that you forgot to have a coat rack available, don’t just say “I’m sorry.”  Say, “I’ll do my best to get that for us right away.” 

>Unless attendees opt out, provide a list of attendees with all pertinent contact info.  It is a networked world, after all… so let’s network 🙂  You can send it as an Excel file, or give us a printout when we arrive (so we can scan for people we might want to meet, or whom we know).

>obtain feedback data on the presentation sessions.  How else will you know what value your attendees took away from a session?  How else will you know the great presenters from the ones committing “death by Powerpoint?”

>30-minute refreshment breaks are great for networking (especially when the rest rooms are far away from any meeting room).  But 5 minute intervals to get from session to session are too short.  Some presenters will run a bit long, or some attendees may want to meet-and-greet your presenters.  make it easy to do that, without having to come in late to the next session.

>Still on the subject of time, 25-minute sessions for presenters to tell a complicated or detailed story, is probably too little.  everyone wants to get the most out of a conference, especially a one-day event that has drawn a literally global group of presenters and attendees.  But rushing presenters and audiences through crammed slide sets, with no time for meaningful questions or responses, does not add value.

>Speaking of global perspectives, there is no excuse today for failing to broadcast, and/or record and archive the presentations at a conference.  The technology is not costly, and you can multiply your reach to people everywhere.

>Finally, have your program committee consider the variety and depth of the presentations they select from the pack of proposals.  Unless you are advertising your event as a one-issue conference, consider the interests of your audience.  Find both established and innovative perspectives on your field, if you can.  Then, when you set up the conference schedule, don’t put several speakers on the same topic, in the same time slot.  Don’t make the choice of session into a popularity contest, or a sacrifice of one good speaker in favor of another.  Variety IS the spice of life.  Don’t forget to get data from your attendees, on topics of interest to them for your next event.  Give the people what they want.

It is very surprising to me that conference organizers, some from very well-known organizations, continue to overlook these basic rules.  As a presenter, and as an attendee, I know I’ll be reluctant to spend hundreds of my own dollars for a conference that isn’t using its own collective brain-power to create a great experience.

Have a great conference!

Bruce Waltuck

Posted in Change, Conferences, Innovation, Networks, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Beyond Pressuredome: Better Boiler Bubbles, and the dynamics of innovation

Posted on November 3, 2010 by complexified

According to the company’s website, Spirax-Sarco has been working for nearly a century to help its customers “optimize productivity.”  The company specializes in helping customers with the “control and efficient use of steam.”  In other words, they know a lot about steam boilers, the common technology for heating buildings.  What Spirax-Sarco didn’t know, was how much their knowledge of steam boilers applied to the dynamics of change and innovation in organizations.

For more than 30 years, I’ve worked as an internal change leader in the public sector.  I have designed and led award-winning quality and process improvement efforts, and award-winning public-private partnerships.  Most recently, I worked as advisor to the leader of a Federal agency in the field of behavioral health.  Over the years, I have consistently worked  with teams and groups ranging from 5 to over 1,000 people at a time.  The common dynamics of teams are often influenced by the energies of power and fear; curiosity and resilience.

The bookshelves and blogosphere are crammed with information and ideas about innovation.  In order to survive and thrive in an increasingly complex and uncertain world, organizations need to innovate, and spread the new ideas to everyone.  Learning from the fields of complex human systems, and social network analysis, provide key insights into enhancing the likelihood of successful innovation:

> Connect everyone

>Connect everything

Sounds simple enough.  Which brings us back to the steam boiler.  Fundamentally, a giant tea kettle, with a network of pipes to carry the steam throughout a building.  Maybe not a whistle to tell us our water is boiling, but in fact, some very similar ways to see what’s happening with our energized bubbles.

Several years ago, while working as a training administrator, I had to obtain training in the operation of our own steam boilers.  I accompanied our class and the instructor, as he toured our own facilities, and pointed out the key features of the boilers.  The first thing I noticed was the C-shaped glass tube that was on the end of the large boiler.  It was a simple way to see the current water level inside the boiler.  More water, or more agitation from heating the boiler, and the water level rose.  Cool things down or evaporate the water, and the level dropped. 

Back at the classroom, the instructor showed a training video: “Inside the Steam Boiler,” which he had obtained from the folks at Spirax-Sarco.  I happened to be in the room, since our CEO asked to drop by and observe a training class in session. Watching the animations on the screen, I learned two things about steam boilers that struck me as relating to the dynamics of innovation and change:

1) the relationship between the heat energy applied to the water in the boiler, and the energy being transmitted up through the system is not linear.  While you’d expect that the hotter the burner, the hotter the resulting water/steam, that is not the case.  At a certain point, the water becomes essentially “resilient” – it takes more and more heat energy from the burner, to continue to raise the energy of the steam.  In other words, the bubbles inside the boiler can “carry” an extra load of heat energy, before they are transformed into the total vapor of steam.

2) As you watch the glass tube along the boiler, the level of bubbling activity that carries the optimal amount of heat energy is not too low, not too high, and not in the middle.  It is, in fact, at the higher level just before the bubbles begin to burst and vaporize.  With too little energy, the boiler bubbles do not carry enough of the burner’s heat energy up into the pipes and throughout the building.  At too high a level, the bubbles hit the pipes, losing energy, and leeching minerals back into the boler to detrimental effect.

It was one of those “Aha!” monents for me.  Throughout the literature on complex human system dynamics, we read about the optimal state being in the “turbulent zone at the edge of chaos.”  Just the right amounts of energy in people from ideas and information, and just the right amounts of interaction and communication exchange.  The view inside the boiler was a physical model and example of how this works with people.

So i called Spirax-Sarco the next day, down in South Carolina. I explained who I was, and that I wanted to get a copy of their video.  I was forwarded to a guy in their marketing department, who assumed I was a boiler operations trainer.  When I explained that no, I was a teacher of organizational leadership and change, there was a silence on the other end of the line.  Needless to say, it took a few nminutes of explaining, before the company’s representative began to understand why I was interested in their video.  He said he’d have to call me back on my request. 

A few days later, he did call back.  Spirax-Sarco would be happy to provide the video, as long as I would assure them I didn’t use it in boiler operations training.  No problem.  The gentleman told me that no one in the company had ever heard of a request like mine, and they were frankly puzzled at what I meant.  I assured him that the firm’s video would help people learn that they were not unlike the percolating orbs of water in the video: under pressure to do their best, and best able to do it when they had the energy and support of others.  I could sense his smile at the other end of the line.

Posted in Change, Complexity, Innovation, Networks | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Q-word, and the future of the “Quality Movement”

Posted on October 27, 2010 by complexified

First, the up-front disclaimer.  The American Society for Quality (rightly wishing these days to be known simply as “ASQ”), has asked me to participate in their new social media initiative.  I am one of a number of people identified as “Voices of Influence.”  For those who follow such things, I have been a leading voice on the evolving work of quality, process, and organizational improvement for over a decade.  My work has been published in the Journal for Quality and Participation, Quality Digest, and more.  For several years, I ran the ASQ discussion board on re-thinking “quality” through the lens of complex adaptive systems.  It has been my privilege and pleasure to have taught and presented throughout the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Southeast Asia, on the work of quality and process improvement.

So, ASQ has asked me to occasionally post here, in response to posts made by Paul Borawski, ASQ’s Executive Director.  I’ve known Paul for years, and we had a great chat for over an hour at the WCQI conference in St. Louis last May.  We do not see eye-to-eye on the issues confronting ASQ and the global quality movement, and I think that is a good thing.  It is through the diversity of our thinking, that new ideas and opportunities emerge.

To get the legal bit out of the way, here is the disclaimer that I am supposed to share with you about my participation in this ASQ effort:

I’m part of the ASQ Influential Voices program. While I receive a variety of quality resources as honorarium from ASQ in exchange for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.

OK, that takes care of the legal bits.  On to the real issues at hand.

In his own blog post, at http://asq.org/blog/2010/10/explaining-raise-the-voice-of-quality-2/     Paul writes about the future of the global quality movement.  He asks what it would take, to get the world’s attention focused on the true value of quality improvement.

My own thinking on this, revolves around several points:

1- What is “quality?”  In 2002 I gave the first in a series of presentations on moving towards “a new definition of quality.”  The traditional definitions, offered by experts such as Juran and Crosby, seemed to focus on the makers of products:  “fitness for use” or “conformance to specification.”  A few of the quality pioneers, such as Val Feigenbaum, and W. Edwards Deming, understood the role of the customer in defining quality.  They noted that fitness, or specification, not only come from the wants and needs of the customer, but they are often fluid and dynamic characteristics, and subject to change.  In other words, hard to know, when you are making and providing products and services.

Since 2002, I’ve talked about re-thinking what we mean by “quality.”  I can show you a costly fountain pen, and assure you that it is fit for use.  I can guarantee that it conforms to your specification.  So what?  The true “quality” of that pen only comes to life in the moment when you, the customer, use it as you wish and intend.  Referring to the constructs of modern physics, I call this “Quantum Quality.”  It is the interaction of product/service, and customer/user, that really define quality.  Often “unknown and unknowable” in advance.  The implications for makers servers, is significant.  The most successful organizations already get it, no matter what they call it.

2- ASQ may still be”out to C.”  At its inception, ASQ was ASQC- the American Society for Quality Control.  This reflected the origins of the quality improvement movement, in the use of statistical methods for controlling unwanted variation in manufacturing.  Making complicated products today still requires and uses these methods.  A modern car has around 20,000 parts.  We need, and want, the processes of manufacturing to be as stable, predictable, and controllable as possible.  On the shop floor, we can work to bring the process under control.  The people who founded ASQ, many of whom still lead the Society today, come from the world of manufacturing.  They are “process control people.”  But as much as we might want to pretend that the world of our human interactions and processes are predictable and controllable, in fact we know they are not.  Increasing complexity in society and in global business markets, has been noted as a serious concern by CEOs.  Yet organizations continue to act in what I call the “AS IF” mode.  Treating the truly complex challenges of changing people’s beliefs and behaviors in organizations, AS IF they were statistically controllable processes on the shop floor.

It is my belief that the way forward for any organization – ASQ or any other – lies in the recognition that improving the outcomes in complex human processes, requires a very different understanding and response, than the work of improving even the most complicated manufacturing process (of course, some of both are always present – just ask Toyota!).  The challenge for ASQ, in my view, is to open itself up to new forms of organizing and collaboration, in response to the complexity of organizational change.

3- The “Q-word” and the future of the quality improvement movement.  For over a decade, it has been my belief that trying to “sell quality” to organizations has been an increasingly hard and useless task.  Useless?  Not int he sense of quality’s inherent value to anyone.  The lessons of Deming and the others are as critical today as they ever were.  What I mean, is that “quality” is too-often associated with failed efforts of the past.  “Didn’t we do that TQM stuff back in the 80s?” “Isn’t Lean the way to go now?” “Isn’t agile the next big thing in software development?”  What IS the “next big thing?”  For ASQ and others in the current quality movement, I believe it is long past time to talk primarily about quality.  Like the recent changes with the Baldrige award, I believe ASQ and its global community of interest, should re-think their brand and their marketing.  In May 2001, I wrote to ASQ leadership with suggestions to drop the “Q-word,” and turn to a focus on continuous process improvement.  It is also long past time to change to an organizational name truly reflecting ASQ’s global community.

As we open the pathways of connection among us all, and freely share information and ideas, we will find new ways to act together into the future.

As a long-time member and leader within ASQ, I sincerely hope the Society can adapt to the new realities in the world, and make the pursuit of excellence the centerpiece of its brand.

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity

Posted in ASQ | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Her Simpler Way: Margaret Wheatley’s “Turning to One Another”

Posted on October 14, 2010 by complexified

Her Simpler Way

A review of “Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future,” by Margaret J. Wheatley (Berrett-Kohler, 2002)

 By Bruce A. Waltuck

In 1993, Meg Wheatley’s inspired vision paved the way for countless change agents to see the world anew.  Her best-selling book “Leadership and the New Science” was among the very first to recognize the connections between the new sciences of chaos and complexity, and the work of leaders in organizations.  The book was the best selling business book of that year, and has been hailed as one of the most important of the last 50 years.

Since then, Meg Wheatley has herself undergone a complex journey.  The former business school professor worked as an organizational consultant throughout the world.  Her writings reflected a passage through the Newtonian methods of TQM, or Six Sigma, and to a deeper understanding of the complexities of human endeavors.  Her 1998 book, “A Simpler Way” was more of a poetic essay, raising more questions than it provided answers or methods.  During the past few years, Meg’s work with her own Berkana Institute, and especially her global call to those who would make a difference, an initiative called From the Four Directions, have inspired thousands of people to heed the call, and experience real leadership for themselves.

 Sometime in 2001, Meg must have finished the work on her book, “Turning to One Another.”  But the events of 9/11 drove Meg Wheatley back to the keyboard.  The book was finally published in early 2002.  It reflects on the uncertainty of these times, and offers a very simple, yet rich and powerful method for engaging people in the work of positive change.  For this work, Meg has turned to one of humankind’s earliest forms of communication – talking, and especially listening – together.  As she says on page 3, “I believe we can change the world if we start listening to one another again.  Simple, honest, human conversation . . . . where we each have a chance to speak, we each feel heard, and we each listen well.”

In the pages and chapters that follow, Meg Wheatley notes her inspiration in nature, and complexity: “Nature organizes much more effectively than we humans do, and quite differently.  For example, life works cooperatively, not competitively. . . “ (pg. 6).  She also sets out the beliefs that support her conversational approach.  Reflecting an understanding of the quantum nature of our universe, Meg notes “Relationships are all there is” (pg. 19).  

To establish these positive relationships, and enable people to work together for improvement in their futures, Meg Wheatley suggests a small number of foundational principles.  These include acknowledging “one another as equals,” and remembering that “conversation is the natural way humans think together.” (pg. 29).  Using examples from many cultures and experiences throughout history, and around the world, Meg reminds us both of our own humanity, and of a way to build a future together.  She echoes her own earlier work with complexity, noting the variety and richness that a diversity of opinion can bring to a conversation:  “We have to be . . . curious about the diversity of experiences and ideas. . . . The deeper order that unifies our experience will show itself, but only if we allow chaos early on.” (pg. 33).

Meg Wheatley encourages us to act, and to take responsibility for the world we want: “If we want a different future, we have to take responsibility for what we are doing in the present.” (pg. 64).  But in her hopefulness, Meg also chides us for the organizational errors she has observed in the past.  She states that “when obedience and compliance are the primary values, then creativity, commitment, and generosity are destroyed.”  These are the words of a person who has witnessed much in the world, both good and bad. 

Ultimately, Meg Wheatley’s hope for the power of simple conversation relies on her understanding of nature.  In living systems, she observes, it is not competition that breeds vitality.  Rather, “it is always cooperation that increases over time” (pg. 106). 

This is a book for, and about, people willing to cooperate; willing to listen and work together.  It offers a wealth of practical and simple principles and methods.  For those of us attuned to the applicability of complexity science to human and organizational behaviors, Meg Wheatley offers a first step away from the center of a dark and foreboding forest.  I have been privileged to meet Meg Wheatley several times over the past few years.  She has been gracious and generous in her advice.  I traveled to Washington, D.C., to see, and listen to her speak about this book in January, 2002.  Her counsel is summed up in the inscription she wrote in my copy of the book:  “May courage be your guide.”

Posted in Change, Complexity, Dialogue, Government Improvement, Innovation, Networks | Leave a comment

What does it take to change? 8 Key Practices..

Posted on October 1, 2010 by complexified

I have worked within ASQ, and the quality improvement community, for over 30 years.  I spent 10 of those years on the Board of Quality New Jersey, and have served for many years on the Board of the Government Division of ASQ. 

What does it take to change?  What is each of us able to do each day?

1- a mission and vision aligned with the times.  Or, as Marshall Goldsmith puts it, “what got you here, won’t get you there.”

2- Deep listening and reflection on the changes around you.

3- Deep listening to the voice of your customers.  Deming taught us that the customer doesn’t always know what they want, but we ignore them at our peril.

4- breaking the entrenched patterns of power, control, and information flow. Was it Jim Collins who advised “let the periphery inform the core?” We get stuck in the old ways even if they will not get us to tomorrow.  As Meg Wheatley teaches, “we must be willing to be perturbed by ideas that do not agree with our own.”

5- align your people around the new vision.

6- build relationships of trust and engagement throughout.  Trust is what makes the engine run.  Seek powerful ideas that attract and motivate.  Deming taught us to drive out fear for a reason. Control and responsibility become distributed among all for the organization.

7- build smart social networks. As Valdis Krebs and June Holley teach, “close the triangles.” Inter-connect everyone to each other, and to the info they need right now.

8- Build agility and resilience.  All the other skills enable this.  

Have fun, and as the old joke said about getting to Carnegie Hall: “practice, practice, practice.”

Posted in Change, Complexity, Government Improvement, Innovation, Networks | Leave a comment

Evidence Based Practice…or Practice Based Evidence?

Posted on September 30, 2010 by complexified

My thanks to Dr. Joe Fortuna for raising a question in email correspondence, about Evidence-Based Management.  My response, which comes first from the field of behavioral health, provides a perspective on the domains of both Evidence-Based Practice, and Practice-Based Evidence (and by extension, to the work of assessing change in complex human processes/systems).

I encountered the issues of Evidenced-Based Practice when I came to SAMHSA and the field of behavioral health.  I began reading the literature on EBP, which is at the foundation of the grant-making process.  Research purports to establish a certain practice, as “evidence-based.”  The grant requestor alleges they will use this practice if they are given the money by SAMHSA.  SAMHSA says we’ll give you the money, if you show us proof that you have acted with “fidelity” to the EBP.  All sounds reasonable and logical.
 
But it isn’t, in my view.  The concept of “evidence based” stuff comes in large part from pharmaceuticals.  Random clinical trials can isolate to a single variable in the study, and researchers can control both the trial and control populations.  Determination of adherence to a particular evidence-based practice or study is comparatively easy.
 
Not so, in behavioral health, and I believe by extension, not so for the work of managing or improving processes with human beings.
 
Here’s why.  The three standard definitions of Evidence-Based Practice in behavioral health come from SAMHSA, the Institute of Medicine, and the American Psycological Association.  All three recognize by definition, the inherent complexity and variability of the clinician-patient relationship.  So what we call “evidence” in the human world of behavioral health, is itself filled with a very high degree of variation in practice.   When the EBP is put into practice (by a grantee, for example), there is even more variability that enters the picture.  The manual for a certain practice may require a measure of cultural competence, or language ability.  It is not always clear if the org engaged in the EBP actually has the means to strictly adhere to the practice.  “Fidelity” becomes a relative term.
 
This is not just my opinion.  There is a growing movement in behavioral health that suggests instead of EBP, we need “Practice-Based Evidence”  (see Michelle Eliason’s book on this, e.g.).  What this means is something similar to the way we assess orgs applying for the Baldrige award.  Teams of observers are trained, so as to align their sense- and meaning-making.  Observing an organization in practice, they can begin to derive the evidence of efficacy.
 
My own explanation for this is that we are dealing with two different types of challenges and processes.  In those situations like random clinical trials, where there is little variation and high degrees of control, we can use EBP to drive results.  But in general, the challenges of managing people and changing what they do, are complex problems.  These are best assessed by the inverse PBE approach.  I gave a talk on this topic to the Plexus Summit in Philadelphia in 2008.
 
I’d refer broadly to the work of Harvard’s Ron Heifetz on this, and to Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model, which was the subject of an article in HBR.  In behavioral health, there was an article co-written I think, by Jeffrey Pfeiffer, that addresses some of the same issues.  The Heifetz model distinguishes between Technical and Adaptive problems.  Snowden describes the realms of simple and complicated (technical to Heifetz) and complex/chaotic (adaptive).  Each requires a somewhat different sequence of inquiry, sense-making, analysis and response (clearly described by Snowden).

So, not really an “either…or…” but more of a “both…and…”  Good luck out there!
 

Bruce Waltuck, M.A., Complexity, Chaos, and Creativity

Posted in Change, Complexity, Networks | Leave a comment

Success Leaves Clues: The Core Principles of Government Improvement

Posted on September 29, 2010 by complexified

“Works better; costs less.”  A catchy phrase, a good slogan. When it comes to the work of government, regardless of political orientation, everyone agrees they want government to work as well as possible.  Without getting into the issues of what government should be doing, we can still think about how government should be making itself better.

Despite the pronouncements of pontificating pundits, government can be as excellent as any other business organization.  In fact, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when government agencies were winning rigorously-judged awards for acheving sustained improvements and superior results.  Do you remember the 90s?  Sure you do.  Did you know that agencies like NASA, and the IRS were winning awards for excellence back then.  Yes.  The IRS centers in Fresno and Ogden were winning Quality Improvement Prototype awards.  Those were customer service centers.  Yes,  IRS and cusotmer service awards- in the same sentence.

How did this happen?  No magic.  The IRS and many other Federal agencies embarked on long-term initiatives to deploy Process Improvement methods.  Back then, Total Quality management was the dominant approach.  Today, Lean Six Sigma builds on the same foundations of improvement taught by W. Edwards Deming.

No matter what method is used, in or out of government, the successful improvement organizations have some things in common:

1) focus on the Process, not the People.  Deming and others taught that 80-90% of the problems with the output or outcomes of a process of work, are the result of a lousy process.  NOT the fault of the people.

2) everyone has to acquire deep knowledge of the current process in order to make meaningful change.

3) decisions need to made based on data and facts, not people’s opinions.

4) differences of opinion need to be fully considered in open, respectful dialogue.

5) failure is an opportunity to learn.  All results provide iinformation to help drive future improvements.

6) It’s not enough to just make it “better, faster, cheaper.”  Aim also at creating “more smiling faces” among your employees, customers, and suppliers.  You’ll be glad you did.

That’s the main part of it.  One more item is needed, in the private sector, but especially in government. 

7)Maintain the commitment to continuous process improvement.  Leaders must support the work, making time and resources available to meet, act, and learn.

If these points, or a similar list, were drawn up as a Charter to Improve Government, would you support it?  Would you encourage your government organizations to sign the charter, and commit to continuous improvement?

Posted in Government Improvement | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Fed” Up? The challenge of improving U.S. Federal recruiting & hiring

Posted on September 29, 2010 by complexified

The Hard Work of Improving the U.S. Federal Recruiting and Hiring Process

Bruce A. Waltuck

(Excerpts of an article yet to be published)

In a recent report, the Partnership for Public Service, and Grant Thornton, LLC, describe ways to improve the U.S. Federal recruiting and hiring system.  As a now former-Fed, unceremoniously cut from an at-will senior position barely a year after the visionary leader who hired me was dispatched overseas, I have spent hundreds of hours poring over Federal vacancy listings on the often-maligned usajobs.gov web site.  My experience may have been unique over the past year of unemployment, but I doubt it. 

There are many indications of well-known and sadly long-standing problems in the Federal government’s recruiting and hiring system.  Recent mandates by the President, supported by the work of Office of Personnel (OPM) Director John Berry, provide some impetus for improvement.  But the problems are many, and often complex.  As in any large organization, change from the long-standing status quo does not come easily, or quickly.  Benchmark best practices may be known, but not able to be implemented in our own system.

There are several key components to the issue:

1) what do hiring agencies need?  It seems easy enough- the best-qualified candidates for a given job, and a way to distinguish among them.  Easier said, than done. 

2) vacancy announcements that sufficiently explain the duties of a job.  Again, somewhat easier said than done.   So the vacancies begin with references to the core knowledge, skills, and abilities of a given job code, and allow the crafting of more specific language for the given vacancy.  So far, so good.

3) an application process that is at once easy to follow and complete, and at the same time, a process which provides the agency sufficient information to make an initial assessment of qualification.  It’s easy to understand why agencies want as much detailed information as they can get in an initial submission.    On average, a single application over the past 14 months, took me an average of 2 1/2 hours to complete.  The shortest was a “rush job” done in about an hour.  The longest took four hours and ten minutes!

>DISCONNECT ALERT:  Wait, you say- can’t you just “copy and paste” your answers from previous applications?  After all, haven’t you just lived one life, and had one career (even if it has had various jobs).  Well yes- and no.   So your labor-management relations experience for fifteen years needs to be framed in one way if you are applying to be a management-side HR Specialist in the Defense Department, and framed in a very different way when you are applying to be an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediator (and yes, these are actual examples from my past year’s experience).     

What is the problem?  With regard to notifying the non-selectee, the answer is found in a single word- fear.  Agencies, their HR experts, and their legal counsel, caution against too much communication with the non-selectee.  Like some personnel-Miranda warning, they feel that “anything you tell them can and might be used against you.”  Will some applicants pursue complaints or even litigation?  I suppose so.  But in my experience, the real fear of talking to a non-selectee runs much deeper.  I am only a sample size of one in my survey here, but I know the things I ask when I am told I did not get the job.  I have drawn my inspiration in this from the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz- “what’ve they got that I ain’t got?”  More politely, I have come to ask what knowledge, skills, or experience, were distinguishing factors in the selection decision?  I am clear in saying that I need to know this in order to decide whether I have a chance at similar jobs in the future, and also, if there are things I can do to build my skills and experience, and thereby improve my chances.  Who wouldn’t want to know that?  But on the flip side, that is often a very difficult conversation for an agency staffer to have with a rejected applicant. 

3a) More on making applications easier to complete:  Last year I had the pleasure of seeing OPM Director John Berry twice at conferences.  Both times, Mr. Berry’s message was the same:  “the Federal government needs to hire the way private industry does- take a two-page resume and a cover letter.  That’s it.”  Recently, the President’s challenge/mandate to improve Federal recruiting and hiring, has driven the implementation of some of Mr. Berry’s ideas.  The lengthy essays have been banished.  So yes, my average time to complete a Federal job application has dropped considerably.  I recently completed two – including the highest-ranked position I have ever applied for – in under 25 minutes.  To complete BOTH. 

4) Time to fill a job:  Once again drawing on my massive survey of me, it looks like the average time to make a hiring decision is at least 120 days.  If everyone agrees on the need to reduce this time, what are the barriers to improvement?  Two problems immediately come to mind- the need to make well-informed decisions, and the capacity of hiring staff relative to the workload.  In a process in which dozens of applicants are submitting voluminous essays, how long does it take for the HR and agency staffs to read everything?  Then make a detailed analysis and decide which of the applicants is on the short-list?  Moreover, in a time when more people are out of work and applying for these jobs, how much greater is the workload, relative to the staff’s capacity?  Streamlining the application process can go a long way to reducing this burden, and towards a significant improvement in time-to-hire.

What to do?  There continue to be problems and disconnects in the Federal recruiting system.   It’s a terrible time to be out of work, and uniquely challenging for many of our youngest and oldest members of the workforce.  For the member of my survey-of-one, namely me, the road to another Federal job has been bumpy and frustrating at best.  Good luck, Mr. Berry.  By the way, if you have any openings for an experienced government process improvement leader, with knowledge of the recruiting and hiring process, please call.  I’m available.

Posted in Government Improvement | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment