Six Simple Questions: A framework for change

In my work with organizations, I’m always trying to find simple questions that generate complex patterns of dialogue and shared learning.  These rich interactions can foster innovation, alignment, and improvement.  While there are no easy answers for the hard problems we face in our organizations, the questions that help us better engage our challenges are best worded in easy-to-understand ways.
 
Here are six simple questions to help any organization
 
  1. How can we best make sense of the challenges we are facing?  (what tools or methods may give us better results)

  2. How can we best decide on what to do together? (same)

  3. Who can we learn from, and how can we best adapt new knowledge to our own challenges? (same)

  4. How can we best explore promising options and ideas for improvement? (same)

  5. How will we sustain everyone’s commitment to improvement?

  6. How will we assure that we are achieving results that are not only “better, faster, and cheaper,” but also “happier and more satisfying” for our employees, customers, and stakeholders alike?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Apple, Verizon, and Customer Service

Like many people today, I own and use a variety of portable computing devices.  For the past two years, I have had an Apple iPhone 4, which I got on the first day they were offered by my wireless provider, Verizon.  It really is a remarkable device.  It is a telephone that can hold, and merge calls for quick conferencing.  It stores my 1200 favorite songs, which I can plug in and play through my car’s stereo.  It gives me access to the internet wherever I go, thanks to the unlimited data plan that Verizon offered on that first day of iPhone sales (and which they quickly stopped offering about six weeks later).  For about a year now, I have also had an iPad.  I probably spend about 90% of my total computer time on the Pad now, going back to the laptop mainly for Microsoft Office work in Word, Excel, or PowerPoint.

Through the wonders of technology, my iPad had the same 498 personal and business contacts that were stored in my iPhone.  Until a few weeks ago, when one day, and without the slightest provocation, my iPad suddenly lost all of my contacts.  Every single one.  Ahh, you may say… why not restore things from the Cloud?  Well, my iPhone is an older model (golly – two years old? Positively ancient, pops!).  My older iOS doesn’t do the Cloud. So I booked a trip to the nearest Apple store, a 45-minute drive away, at the Freehold, New Jersey Mall.  My Apple technologist from their “Genius Bar” tried really hard to make the contacts come back to my iPad.  He even pulled out a mysterious black box, a small thing with a tiny monochromatic screen and just a few cursor buttons, with wires and cables sticking out of its sides.  It looked a lot like the test-o-meters I used to see in the hands of electronics hobbyists at Radio Shack.  This mysterious thing was then connected to my iPhone and iPad.  The buttons were pushed, and the Genius Tech waited.  He then said the words you do not ever want to hear in these situations: “wow…I’ve never seen THAT before.”  In short, because of my old iOS on the phone, the magic box could not do its thing.  I was advised to go home, back up my iPhone contents to my laptop, and install an upgraded iOS to my iPhone.  Then the wonders of the Cloud would be mine, and my c  ontacts would magically re-appear on my iPad.

Sometimes in life, fate deals a cruel and unexpected blow.  Before I could do the backup and upgrade, I had to make a quick business trip to Northern Virginia.  My iPad and iPhone were in the car, and my laptop at home on the desk.  About 90 minutes into the trip, I stopped at the beautiful new service area on I-95 in Delaware.  A marvel of excessive cheery cubic footage, with unique urinals, high-powered hand-dryers, and free WiFi.  Fresh latte safely in hand, I sat down to check my email on the iPhone.  As expected, my accountant wanted some documents for my tax prep.  I had scanned these in with my iPad and emailed them to myself back home, so they would be just a “Forward” click away from my iPhone’s inbox.  The first two went through fine.  But on the third. . . the fickle finger of fate reached out and got me.  The iPhone screen turned to a streaky mass of black and dark grey.  The phone seemed dead.  I tried every combination of key presses and resets that I knew.  No help.  I went out to the car for my iPad, and quickly finished sending out my emails.  Then I looked online for any possible explanation of the black screen of death.

This was not an unknown problem, but there seemed to be no known cure.  I got in the car and drove on to Virginia.  Over a cold macchiato, I used my iPad to get on Skype, and seamlessly buy landline calling credits for $4.99 through iTunes.  A 15-minute call to home in New Jersey cost about 33 cents.  I then located the nearest Verizon Wireless store, which was just two miles away.  There, a seemingly competent guy looked at my phone, and in less than 25 seconds, said “this phone’s dead.”  I am 61 years old, and I had forgotten how it felt to drive around the country without a cell phone working as it should.  How DID we survive for decades without this?

On the drive back to New Jersey, I was suddenly shocked to hear a familiar sound coming from my pocket.  The iPhone was ringing.  Even in the inky blackness of a dead screen, I knew from habit how to unlock the phone and take the call.  It worked, and was, of course, my accountant.  I told him I was never so happy to hear from him (not true of course, as he was calling to tell me what I owed the State of New Jersey).  About an hour later, the phone chirped again – the familiar sound of an alert for a pending calendar event.  My excitement increased at the prospect that my iPhone was still alive, and that the Verizon guy in Virginia didn’t know his ear from his elbow.

Back home, I fired up the laptop, launched Apple’s iTunes software, and expectantly plugged the iPhone into the nearest USB port.  I confess I am not fond of iTunes, and not an expert in its many arcane ways.  I was able to back up my pictures and videos, my apps, and iTunes U podcasts, and so on.  But I wasn’t sure if the Contacts made it, and that was critical.  So I let Google be my guide, and I quickly found a new release from a firm in Switzerland, that proclaimed its wizardry at importing and exporting i-Thing Contacts and other content.  A few clicks and $13.99 later, and my precious contacts were safely in an Excel spreadsheet, replicated across several hard drives and email accounts.  For its part, iTunes seemed to insist that we lowly Windows users have Outlook, as a conduit for backing up Contacts.  Macintosh users, naturally, had no such impediments.

With the elegance of the iPad, I quickly booked a Genius appointment at the nearest Apple store, 45 minutes away at the Freehold Mall.  A lovely suburban shrine to retail consumption, with a Nordstrom cafe counter at which I could get a delicious Cinnamon Italian Soda freshly made.  Drink, iPhone, iPad, and laptop in hand, I went in to the Apple store.  My Genius was a nice guy, around 30, who took my phone to the back room for a quick analysis.  Dead screen, he told me.  Agreed.  What then, were my options?  He was nice enough to tell me he could check my account status with Verizon, and see when I was entitled to my next replacement phone.  A few clicks and taps brought the news that I’d have to wait until the end of June to get a new iPhone from Verizon.  Did Apple have any other options?  My Genius smiled and said yes.  He told me that Apple had factory-reconditioned iPhone 4’s, with 90-day warranty, for $149.  Not bad, considering, that Verizon would probably tell me my only option was an unsubsidized, full-cost iPhone for around $600.  Buying a used phone from Apple would also not mess with my Verizon data plan.  Verizon had previously told me that my unlimited plan only lasted as long as my current phone.  Any new phone purchase would end the unlimited deal (gee, thanks!).

On my way in to the Apple store, I had seen a Verizon store in the mall, close by.  I told my Genius that I’d go give Verizon a try.  We both agreed that this was likely to be an unsuccessful venture, so my Genius booked me an Apple SalesGenius appointment, in 30 minutes.  I packed up my tech toys, and drink in hand, headed over to the Verizon Wireless store.  Unlike the bustle of Apple’s technology wonderland, the Verizon store was nearly empty.  I was approached by one of two greeters, a woman in her 50s.  She was very nice, and seemed legitimately sorry that I was having problems with my iPhone.  She said I could go on to the back of the store, and talk with the person at the help counter.

There was one person at the counter, a woman in her late 20s or early 30s, perhaps.  She asked my name, and the number on the account.  Then she asked for a photo ID.  then, as she looked at my account info, she began to read me the details of my contract.  She told me that I was not due for an upgrade until the end of June.  I did not let on that I already knew this, as I wanted to hear what options she might offer me to remedy my situation.  Her voice was cold and flat as she read off the terms that Verizon was prepared to offer me- the option to buy an unsubsidized iPhone for about $500 more than it would cost me 10 weeks from now.  I said that no, this was not acceptable to me.  I asked if there was no consideration of my situation as a loyal and valued customer.  I have three family phones with Verizon, all iPhones, all with data plans, and have been their customer for over a decade.  Nope.  The woman seemed to be increasing her steely resolve, and her cold demeanor.  I then asked why Verizon couldn’t simply offer me a pro-rated price on a new iPhone, since I was already 94 weeks into the 104-week term of my current contract.  The woman looked at me from behind the desk and her computer screen and uttered words that they usually teach you to avoid, when you take Customer Service 101: “Sir, you just don’t understand. . .”

Of course I understood.  I even told her so, before the “and” in “understand” had drifted out into the space between us.  I said that I was totally aware of the terms of the contract, but that I was asking for help, and for an option that addressed my needs and my interests.  I noted that all I was hearing was the one option, which was completely unsatisfactory and out of the question for me.  Throughout my conversation with the woman at the counter, she had stuck to both her scripted replies, and unfriendly attitude.  All the while, behind her, the door was open to a corner back room, at which an older woman, perhaps in her late 40s or early 50s, was sitting.  The second woman was clearly observing my exchange with the desk clerk.  In fact, as the conversation went on, and as I articulated both my desire for a better option, and my frustration at the “repeat again and again” treatment, I could see the woman in the back room begin to scowl.  Around the time I intoned that I did fully understand what I was being told – but simply rejected the terms and wanted a better offer – the second woman got up and came to the counter.

Most of us have had customer service experiences involving the second tier of the response hierarchy.  Sometimes (and if we are lucky) they are the people with a bit more experience and discretion, who have broader authority to bend or even break the rules in a unique customer situation.  Sometimes, they are the “good cop” who will in fact give you the same message as the tough cop, but in a nicer way to ease your distress.  Not this time.  The frowning second woman (her longish hair was obscuring her name tag, unfortunately) immediately began to scold and lecture me! She told me she had been observing the conversation, and that I was neither listening nor understanding.  I assured the woman that this was not true.  I knew my contract was not up until June, and I knew Verizon was offering me the opportunity to pay the full load for a new phone now.  In fact, I told both women that it was ME who was not being heard or understood.  What I was asking for, very directly, was an accommodation, in consideration of the situation.  I should mention here, that at no time did anyone at Verizon ask to examine my phone to confirm its problem.  Neither did they make any offer or suggestion regarding the possibility of repair, or a temporary loaned phone to get me through until June.  Why, I wondered, was it MY responsibility to think of alternative ways to resolve my problem?

The scowler simply repeated her insistence that I had not been listening.  I cut her off to tell her that there was no need to repeat the terms of my contract.  I assured #2 that #1 had done a great job of clearly and fully explaining this to me, and that I fully understood what had been said.  I was simply trying to save everyone some time, by not making the second woman read this to me yet again.  But the second woman wouldn’t have any of that.  She was not negotiating, she was dictating.  IF I would stop interrupting, she said, and IF I would listen to what she had to tell me, then MAYBE I would understand her.  I’d had about enough of this sort of treatment.  I told them firmly that there was no need to insult or demean me. To this, the second woman said “see… you are doing it again… all you want to do is interrupt me and not let me finish..”  We were quickly descending dow a rabbit-hole of customer service hell.  But we weren’t finished.

Around this time, a third person had come to the counter from a different doorway.  His name was Harold, and he may have been one of the managers there.  He stood behind the two women as our conversation continued.  The irate second woman put a bit more edge into her tone and once again told me that the only choice I had was to buy a new iPhone for around $600.  I smiled and turned to the man.  “Harold,” I said in a calm and friendly tone, “you wouldn’t pay that price in this situation, would you?”  I have interviewed more than 10,000 people during my long career as a Federal investigator.  I saw the upturn at the corners of Harold’s mouth.  He wanted to crack a smile, but he didn’t dare.  I let harold off the hook as I continued, “you know as well as I do, that none of you would pay that price if you were in my situation.  What I am asking you for here is some accommodation, some recognition that I have been a loyal customer for many years, and that you want to keep me as a customer.”

By then, the dynamics at the counter had changed and I could see that I was now leading the way.  But the angry second woman wasn’t having any of that.  She said another thing you aren’t taught in customer service class: “you aren’t special… all of our customers have been with a long time, just like you…”  Oops!  I looked at her directly and said, “you’re wrong and you know it.  Not all of your customers have had three smart phones and been with you for more than ten years.”  That was the last straw for the scowler, and she said the thing that they teach you to say less than .00001% of the time: “you should leave the store now.” I had certainly expressed my frustration and disappointment, but I had been calm, clear, and civil throughout.  But not according to the second woman, who, despite having two other witnesses, accused me of constantly interrupting them, of ignoring what I was told, and of failing to understand even simple things.  I tried once more to make MY points clear, and reiterated that I had come to them with a problem; that they had treated me badly from the minute I got to the counter, and that rather than really try to help me, they were now throwing me out of their store.  Once again, the now red-faced second woman angrily said that I should just leave.

I stepped back from the counter, and spoke very calmly to her.  I told her that unlike the three of them, who were unwilling or unable to help me, I would help them that day.  To the looks of bewilderment, I said “I’m going to give you a free gift today… I am a developer and teacher of nationally-recognized customer service training.  You can Google me on the internet and look it up if you like…”  At that, the second woman’s jaw dropped.  “is…is that really true” she asked.  I assured her that it was true, and I then said “here is my advice to you… never meet a customer’s frustration with anger and meanness.  That is what you just did to me…”

It was time to go, and I headed out of the store.  The wonderful greeter stopped me to ask how things had gone.  “Very badly” I told her.  She looked puzzled, as I went on “they were very cold, very mean, and they told me several times I should just get out of the store.”  The greeter looked shocked and incredulous.  “It’s true” I said.  “You can go ask Harold later.”

A few minutes later I was back at the Apple store, with a gleaming refurbished iPhone plugged into my laptop.  My Genius this time was a 20-something Asain-American with two silvery rings piercing her lower lip.  She was welcoming, friendly, and competent, as she explained each step of the process in connecting my new phone, to restore my old contents.  As the machines chugged away, she said “stay as long as you like… I know it will take a little while.  Call on any of us if I am busy with another customer.  We’re all here to help you.”

And so they were.

 

Posted in Change, Continuous Process Improvement | 1 Comment

Quality in Government: Answers, Questions, and the “AS IF…” to “BOTH…AND…” Challenge

Hi again, to all interested in process and organizational improvement.  After a personal leave from the blogosphere, I am back with my fellow ASQ “Voices of Influence.”  In this post, I am playing a bit of “catch-up.”  This post responds to ASQ’s Paul Borawski, and Paul’s post of March 15th, entitled “Local Governments and Quality.”

In his post, Paul notes the quality and organizational improvement achievements of Baldrige winners in Coral Springs, Florida, and Irving, Texas.  Paul commented also on new initiatives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in Shanghai.  In closing, Paul asks the ASQ community where we think “quality is taking root in city, local, and state or province management?”

The question might seem straightforward.  But just like the challenge of people sitting together to improve a business process, there is more to Paul’s question than what we observe on the surface.

We can talk about so many examples, at all levels, in all parts of the world.  The city of Madison, Wisconsin, and their Police Chief’s great initiative for citizen engagement.  The Lean initiative in Erie County, NY, whose published results became a political football.  The Iowa Lean consortium, the Connecticut Department of Labor, the New York State SAGE Commission, King County, in Washington State, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the Lean efforts in Springfield, Massachusetts, and in State governments in Georgia and Maine, just to name a very few.

But when we look at these organizations, we must ask several questions about the challenges, responses, and outcomes over time:

  • What were the challenges or problems these organizations identified?
  • What tools and methods did they use in order to improve results?
  • Did they use approaches that deliberately addressed process improvements, such as CQI or Lean?
  • How did these organizations define “quality?”
  • Were the improvements achieved, sustained over time?

It’s easy to think that government is very different from private industry.  Government lacks shareholders and the profit motive.  Yet government has stakeholder citizens, and legislators who provide funding.  Do a really bad job, and your “market share” in terms of budgeted dollars, will shrink or vanish.  Think government has a monopoly on its services and products?  In many cases, they do.  But there is a growing inquiry around the concept of government as simply a manager of contracted services.  What happens to quality and improvement, when the low bidder, whose employees have no personal stake in the outcome, take over from a government organization?

In the examples I noted above, many of the government organizations dumped their quality/improvement initiatives as soon as a new administration was sworn in.  This has been the case in Iowa, Georgia, Erie County, and more.  We know that to achieve Dr. Deming’s “constancy of purpose” requires constancy of commitment over time.  Leaders must actively and publicly support improvement initiatives.  This is often cited as the single most important driver of sustained improvement.

The final question, and for me, perhaps the most significant, is how to overcome what I’ve seen as the single biggest cause for failed improvement initiatives.  This is what I call “AS IF…” thinking and behavior.  It is indeed hard to make change, and improve outcomes in a highly complicated business process.  Recall Toyota’s much-publicized electrical problem a few years ago.  But the right experts could fix the problem.  Why then, was there a delay of many months in Toyota’s response?  The work of change is hard.  Movement from the status quo is toward the values and beliefs of some, and away from those of others.  We become afraid of failure.  Toyota’s engineers were afraid to report the problem to the CEO.

Organization leaders treat what are in fact the complex challenges of making change with the people at the table AS IF these were the kinds of technical complicated problems that any expert could fix.  Sadly, too many Lean and other improvement consultants, are only too happy to sell their services to government orgs, and make promises based on the same flawed thinking.  The traditional tools and methods of what we know as “quality improvement” are great for getting potholes fixed in less time, or at lower cost.  They do not address what Harvard’s Ron Heifetz calls the “adaptive challenges” of change leadership.

During my nearly 15 years on the Board of ASQ’s Government Division, I began work on what has now become a signature approach to both helping government improve, and to gathering stories of improvement initiatives around the world.  Keep seeking those organizations – in or out of government – who sustain their commitment to continuous improvement, and who do so through an approach that recognizes BOTH the need to focus on process improvement, AND the complex adaptive challenges of change leadership.

DO NOTE… that I am an ASQ Voices of Influence blogger.  I receive some small bit of compensation for this, which does not influence my thinking or writing at all 🙂

 

Posted in Adaptive Capacity, ASQ, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement, Government Improvement, Quality | 1 Comment

Adaptive Behavior and Regulatory Compliance

From 1976 to 2002, I worked as a Compliance Specialist for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.  In that capacity, I enforced about 80 different laws, including Federal minimum wage, overtime, child labor, migrant farm labor, family and medical leave, and equal pay and age discrimination.  In 1998, I first learned about complexity, and the dynamics of complex adaptive human systems.  Complexity has given me a powerful perspective on the forces influencing employer behavior, and on ways that regulatory compliance agencies like Wage and Hour, should plan and deploy their limited resources.  Over the intervening years, I have on several occasions corresponded with my former DOL colleagues about the complexity perspective, and their work to influence outcomes towards broader compliance.

Recently I received an email from two former colleagues, with a brief comment about a particular work visa program, enforced by Wage and Hour.  This bit of law applies to non-agricultural workers, and is most commonly used to let in foreign seasonal workers at various hospitality businesses.  You would think that Americans could and would fill the jobs at beachfront amusement parks, hotels, and restaurants.  You’d be wrong.   Despite concerted efforts to educate and inform employers and employees, patterns of violation are still widespread.  The possibility of litigation and significant penalties still do not stop employers from violating the law.

Following is my response to my DOL friends, written from a complexity perspective:

I would presume that…we have tipped H2B workers in Summer seasonal employment, most likely at the shore, and most likely in hotel, restaurant, amusement, and related businesses.
One key characteristic of complex human systems, is something we’ve talked about for years, with health care, and also low wage employers.  We humans are always impacted by what are called “attractors of meaning.” Think of these as “idea magnets” whose perceived meaning and consequences pull and push us, in varying degrees, over time.  The establishment and imposition of structured processes (like how to do one’s job, or a set of laws and regs) provides some limits and boundaries.
In a perfect world, maybe everyone would do exactly what the system and rules intended.  But that isn’t how nature works, or how humans work.  The variations in our understanding, and the impact of multiple Attractors, lead us to act in ways that confound or contradict the system and the rules/laws.  The motivation of more money, lower business costs, shrinking attendance, post-hurricane rebuilding delays, and so on, are all powerful.  When these perceived factors outweigh the concern or fear of the law, more violations are likely.
What will create desired change (compliance, for example)? Can Wage and Hour have a better and bigger Attractor of Meaning to motivate employers and employees? Can you ever have enough investigators and lawyers to get all the violators? Of course not.  Is education and outreach a sufficient strategy? When we began in healthcare, ed/out was novel, and carried the promise of fewer investigations, less hassle, and lower costs through avoided litigation.  But we saw in the data over time, how increased cost pressures resulted in more recidivism.  People in the healthcare sector adapted to the changes in their economic environment.
If you can not control the system, and you can not force sufficient compliance, what are your options? The challenge is to think and act as the employers and employees do.  But you are perhaps more bounded and constrained.
Who are the major originating countries? What does WH currently do to inform workers and their families before they come here? Are there tactics of espionage and counter-insurgency that can be adapted and deployed (e.g., using planted undercover WH people as H2B workers)?
We’d like to think that the rule of law makes problem-solving easier.  With known knowns, we use known best practice.  With known unknowns, we call on the experts.  But with unknown and emergent unknowns, the best we can do is make educated guesses, and try “safe to fail” experiments.  We then watch, learn, and amplify the good results, while dampening the bad ones.  It is always back and forth, until the range and power of the attractors settle into coherent, stable, and predictable patterns that we can manage.
You can’t “master” chaos or complexity.  But you can learn what it is, and what works best in response to it (agility and adaptability).  What is Wage and Hour doing in this area?
Thanks, dear friends, for reminding me of my Wage and Hour heritage 🙂
Have a great day,
Bruce
Posted in Adaptive Capacity, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement, Government Improvement | 1 Comment

Adaptive Organizations: Towards Mastery in the Moment

The highly-regarded Altimeter Group has asked on their website, for comments about Adaptive Organizations.  Let’s take a look at what this means, and why developing greater adaptive capacity is important for organizations.

 

Adaptive means able to change in response to changes in our environment.  Charles Darwin noted that those most likely to survive, would be those most able to respond to changes in their environment.  Our lived experience teaches us how certain things typically work in our world.  We develop beliefs and values both personally, and collectively.  Our beliefs and knowledge give us a set of expectations about how the world around us will act into the future.  But even familiar routines and processes vary over time.  If we get a flat tire on the way to work, we usually know what to do.  Our knowledge and understanding let us adapt to these comparatively small variations in our daily experience.

But sometimes,the degree of difference between how we expect things to work, and what actually happens, is significant.  The limits of our understanding, knowledge, and beliefs may be pushed or exceeded.    Things in our world may be permanently changed, and we are challenged to respond.  Being rather autonomous beings, we humans also have the capacity to implement significant change in our lives all by ourselves.  Did anyone tell Picasso to have a cubist period, a blue period, a rose period, in his painting? Sometimes we create the significant degrees of difference all by ourselves, in order to renew our creativity, and our ability to shape the environment that is simultaneously shaping us.  A small and subtle perception of difference and opportunity in our environment can inspire significant change.

Organization typically refers to a form of collective endeavor.  There are varying degrees of structure among organizations, and varying ways that organizations interact with, and react to their environments.   Corporations evolve over time to have highly-ordered structures of authority, information flow, and activity.  Historically, armies had very specific hierarchies of command, and strict rules of engagement.  Organizations interact with their environments just as we do individually.  Change can come in the form of incremental innovations, or the sudden seismic shift of a new and disruptive technology.  Ralph Stacey of the University of Hertfordshire in England, has a different way of defining organizations.  Drawing on his understanding of human communication and interaction, Stacey says organizations are the iterated patterning of complex responsive processes in our human relating.  In other words, the traditional ways that we tend to think of an organization as having an identity or culture or even intention of its own, are wrong in Stacey’s view.  Ralph says that the organization is all of us communicating together.  Meaning and knowledge in Stacey’s world, emerge between and among us more than in us.

Growing Adaptive Organization capacity is critical as the pace of significant disruptive change and uncertainty accelerate in the world.  How we respond to changes around us directly affects our ability to survive and thrive. How many ways do we know to solve a problem?  How quickly can we change when we have to? Adaptive dynamics occur in several dimensions:

Place: Where are the sources of change?  Fundamentally, is the impetus outside of us or the organization, or from within?

Time: How quickly can we process our experience of the significantly different, and how quickly can we try new options?

Learning: How well are we able to take in information about what is happening around us, and use it to build new knowledge, understanding, and capability?

Connections: How well are we connected to a diverse group who are both able to scan our changing environment, and think together about our response?

The two organizations I wold cite here as examples of adaptive capacity, hardly seem related.  Brazil’s Semco may be the most radically-organized business in the world.  No titles, no specific hierarchy.  People encouraged to tinker and experiment with new lines of business.  The U. S. Army retains rank, titles,and rules of engagement.  But at the same time, each soldier is taught to be aware, adaptive, and in constant communication with his or her peers.  Both Semco and the Army operate from a set of core values, core operating practices, and a shared aligned understanding of vision and objectives.

Perhaps the epitome of adaptive capacity is the martial arts master.  Balanced yet fully focused in their awareness.  Almost immediate processing of whatever experience comes at them.  Flexible and creative in their patterns of response.  The truly Adaptive Organization, like the martial arts master, enters what Ralph Stacey calls “the living present” and stands confident and ready for the next change around them.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Complexity and Substance Abuse Prevention: Are you SPF-y Enough?

In my two preceding posts, I began to explore and explain the truly complex nature of behavioral health, and the implications of a complex systems perspective on the applicability of Evidence-Based Practices.  In this post, I want to take a look at the predominant approach to substance abuse prevention, again through the lens of complexity.

SAMHSA advocates the use of a Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF), as a way for groups to plan, implement, and assess the results of specific prevention strategies and tactics.  As with other funded behavioral health programs, there is the expectation of reliance on evidence-based practices, and fidelity to those practice standards upon local implementation.  First, a look at the SPF.  This comes from SAMHSA publication Identifying and Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions, HHS Pub. No. (SMA)09-4205:

The Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF):

Step 1. Assess population needs (nature of the substance abuse problem, where it occurs, whom it affects, how it is manifested), the resources required to address the problem, and the readiness to act;

Step 2. Build capacity at State and community levels to address needs and problems identified in Step 1;

Step 3. Develop a comprehensive strategic plan. At the community level, the comprehensive plan articulates a vision for organizing specific prevention programs, policies, and practices to address substance abuse problems locally;

Step 4. Implement the evidence-based programs, practices, and policies identified in Step 3; and

Step 5. Monitor implementation, evaluate effectiveness, sustain effective activities, and improve or replace those that fail.

You don’t have to be an expert in complex systems, to raise some questions from your own experience with prevention:

…there are many systems whose interdependence drives patterns in behavioral health.  How can we know what to do on just one part of the whole system, let alone know the effect on other parts of the system? Complexity teaches us that we can not predict the behavior of the whole, from an analysis of the parts in any complex system. Neither can we predict the full range of consequences that will follow from changing one part of the whole system.

…There is an old saying in the world of business organizations that “culture eats strategy for lunch.”  In other words, how can we fully know the organizational culture where an evidence-based practice originated from, let alone know the differences between that originating culture and the culture where you intend to implement the strategy/tactic? Some say that there are no “best practices,” only “practices that worked well for those people in that place and under their circumstances.  How can you understand the context where the practice originated, and compare it to your own context and culture?

…When we work with a community or any group of stakeholders, we are always dealing with the diversity of individual beliefs, knowledge, values, and meaning-making.  How can we know the full range of these differences among the people at our table, let alone help them engage in respectful and collaborative dialogue?  How can we learn to suspend our judgments and engage in collaborative dialogue, so that we may think, learn, and act together?

…How can we act if we are dealing with truly complex problems, filled with both known and unknown unknowns? Complexity teaches us that in the face of truly complex problems, we are not likely to know, or be able to use, a single “best practice.”  In a complex domain, we are best served by trying multiple “safe to fail probes” – experiments using various approaches to the problem.  We assess the results, and we keep/amplify what works, and discard/dampen what does not work.

In these ways we can begin to overcome what I call “AS IF…” change leadership – the unproductive practice of treating truly complex problems AS IF they were technical and merely complicated.  If that were true, we would have solved these problems by now.

Coalitions at any level, and to address any issue, must be built on the foundations of engagement and trust.  Seek the powerful “attractors of meaning” – ideas that inspire and motivate people – and use dialogue methods to think and act together.  Rather than “fidelity to an evidence based practice,” work together to define your core values and operating principles.   You can – and I think must – assess your fidelity to your own espoused values and principles. Your practices will yield results, and that result will be the evidence of your success.

All contents of this post and the preceding two posts are (c)copyright Bruce Waltuck, 2012.  Permission is granted under a Creative Commons license for non-commercial use of the contents of these posts, so long as proper attribution and citation to this source is given.

 

Posted in Behavioral Health, Change, Community, Complexity, Dialogue | 1 Comment

Complexity and Behavioral Health: Complex, not Complicated

In my previous post, I began to explore the limits of Evidence-Based Practice in behavioral health.  My thinking about this evolved during my tenure as SAMHSA’s Senior Advisor for Process Improvement.  My own background was not in behavioral health, but was in organizational change leadership.  Over the past 14 years, my work has been most greatly influenced by my study and understanding of what are called “complex adaptive systems.”

With a minimum of explanation and jargon, the systems we live and work in – and the problems we face – fall into two basic categories.  One type are technical problems.  If we know the right stuff, have the right resources and people, we can fix the problem every time.  This is a domain of “known knowns” and “known unknowns.”  It is also the domain of best practices and experts.  Get the engineers and designers, and you can build a great car or smartphone.

The other basic type of problem is what Ron Heifetz, professor of leadership at Harvard’s Kennedy School, calls “adaptive” problems.  We all see the world through the lens of our own lived experience – our norms, and values.  What we believe and know and expect.  So when we are faced with a truly complex adaptive problem – lowering the rate of teen prescription drug abuse, for example – it is a lot harder than building the next iPhone.  Any change from the status quo will be a move away from the beliefs and expectations of some of us, and towards the beliefs and interests of others.  That movement creates tension, and that tension creates conflict.  What will we do?

This is a world of “unknown unknowns” and “unintended consequences.”  We do not, or can not know everything we want or need to know before we try a new policy or procedure.  Sure, maybe that ad campaign worked in the northeast on teen drinking.  But how will it work among Southwestern tribal teens?

Humans do not behave like machines.  As with many systems in nature, our patterns of behavior are not stable, predictable, and controllable.  We WISH they were, but we KNOW they really are not.

Here are a few characteristics that define and distinguish COMPLEX systems:

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS:  Individuals in the system can choose, think, believe, and act more or less as they wish (bounded of course by held beliefs values, knowledge and resources).  Put another way each of us is capable of “doing our thing” anytime we want. Complex systems are then NON-LINEAR (do not always follow the same sequence of steps) and NON-DETERMINISTIC (we do not necessarily get the same result every time even if we think we did the same things the same way as last time).

EMERGENT PATTERNS: Seemingly random interactions can suddenly and even dramatically shift to new and unforeseen patterns of behavior.  The Occupy movement has no leader or defining moment of conception.  Likewise the Arab Spring.

CAUSALITY BACKWARD:  In a technical system, like making a car, we can know the steps, and know what the outcome will be in advance- every time.  In a complex system, a study of the parts or people will not necessarily predict the behavior of the syustem into the future.  The only way to get a sense of causality is to look backwards from where we are at, and try to understand how we got here.  This has particular bearing on the relative merits of Evidence-based Practice versus Practice-Based Evidence.

SELF-ORGANIZING: as with systems in nature, complex human systems typically self-organize.  We come together and act together not because any law compels us, but because our understanding of various ideas will attract or repel us to act.  These forces are called ATTRACTORS OF MEANING.

How does this relate to the work of substance abuse prevention, especially through community coalitions?  Read more in my next post.

Posted in Behavioral Health, Change, Community, Complexity | Leave a comment

Complexity and Behavioral Health: EBP and PBE

Three years ago I went to work as a Senior Advisor at SAMHSA, the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.  My job was to oversee process improvement efforts at the agency responsible for giving out $3billion a year in grants for mental health, and substance abuse prevention and treatment services.  At that time I was not a behavioral health professional.  But I WAS a professional in organizational change leadership, and business process improvement.  I had previously created and managed the US Department of Labor’s award-winning improvement initiative.

Although the employees of SAMHSA care deeply about helping those people whose services are in part funded by SAMHSA, the day-to-day work of SAMHSA is fundamentally about making and managing grants.If I was going to help SAMHSA do its work better, I needed to quickly learn as much as I could about the agency and its work.  Literally from my first day on the job, I heard a phrase I would hear almost every day during my tenure at SAMHSA- “evidence-based practice.”  I knew about “best practices” from the world of business process improvement.  For companies who manufactured cars, there would be a “best practice” somewhere, that was the best available way to perform a task to take the least time, cost less to make, and have the highest possible quality.  From my years at DOL, I knew that “better, faster, cheaper” was a phrase that policy-makers and stakeholders liked to use too.  But I also knew from years of managing change efforts at DOL, that changing people and their behaviors was among the hardest things to do.  People could not be managed and controlled the way machines on a factory floor could be controlled.

So very soon after my arrival at SAMHSA, I went to the agency’s library, and asked the librarian for books and articles to help me better understand the work of substance abuse prevention and treatment.  One of the books given to me was “Improving Substance Abuse Treatment” by Michele Eliason.  Just pages into the book, I began to read about “Evidence-Based Practice.”  A bit farther on, around page 27 I think, I read about three standard definitions of “Treatment.”  These came from SAMHSA/NREPP, the IOM, and the APA.  All three made clear that the relationship between the clinician and patient/recipient, was to be controlled by the patient/recipient.  All three definitions clearly noted the highly complex and variable nature of the treatment dynamic.

I immediately wondered how such a highly variable process could then describe “evidence” or an “evidence-based” practice.  In the world of business process improvement – frequently a world of manufacturing – variation is literally “the enemy.”  When we buy a car, we want to assure that it was made completely within the specifications of the manufacturer, and that it will perform exactly the way the manufacturer claims it will.  When we go to Starbucks, we have every right to expect that our java frappawhatzis will be consistently made every time.

Given the high degree of variation from one clinician and patient/recipient to the next, could we call a type of commonly-used practice “evidence?”

I went on to read more in the book and in other literature.  I learned that the notion of Evidence-Based Practice came from the world of random clinical drug trials.  Again, my mental radar went on alert.  In a random drug trial, testers could easily control the sample population, and they could control the experiment to isolate the single variable they were exploring.  This did not seem to be the case in behavioral health.

When SAMHSA makes a grant, the phrase “fidelity to” inevitably precedes the phrase “evidence-based practice.”  I understood that if I gave you a million dollars to do something I wanted done, that I’d sure as heck want to know that you did what you said you’d do.  Fidelity.  To the Evidence-Based Practice.  But then I read more about how these EBP’s were implemented in the real world.  More variation, more problems.  Did the implementing facility have any language barriers?  Cultural competency barriers?  Did they have sufficient staff, sufficiently trained in the EBP?  Were there technology requirement barriers?

So, within a matter of weeks after arriving at SAMHSA, I had serious doubts about the validity of the whole notion of applying EBP to the field of behavioral health.  The bad news is that I was not a bheavioral health professional, and might be seen as lacking credibility in question EBPs.  But the good news is that I found in Michele Eliason’s book and elsewhere, a small but growing counter-movement to the reliance on EBPs in behavioral health.  In fact, there were a number of professionals advocating instead for what they called “Practice-Based Evidence.”  But what did this mean?

In the world of business organizations, the highest American award for excellence is the Baldrige Award.  Many states have their own equivalent.  Assessment explores seven categories of organizational performance, including leadership, process management, and results.  To know how well a company was really doing, the award organizers trained a group of observers to go onsite at an award applicant’s facilities. I did this for two years in my state award system.  When I was trained with my team, we were told that the training was aimed at “aligning” or “calibrating” us.  In other words, the award administrators knew that each person saw the world differently.  But through common training and shared learning, we could narrow the range of variation in our perceptions, and make effective collective observations and conclusions.

This is the approach also recommended in the alternative Practice-Based Evidence movement.

Why is this important?  Is there a “difference that makes a difference” between PBE and EBP?  Read on to the next post to learn more.

Posted in Behavioral Health, Change, Complexity, Continuous Process Improvement | Leave a comment

Complexity and Community School Psych – Workshop Notes

 

COMPLEXITY NOTES FOR WORKSHOP WITH DOCTORAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL PSYCH STUDENTS

…WHAT KINDS OF PROCESSES DO WE WANT TO IMPROVE?
…HOW DO WE IMPROVE PROCESSES AND RESULTS?
…WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE IN CHANGE OR IMPROVEMENT?

—BRIEF STORY IF CHANGE AT USDOL

—TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION MODELS
…HIERARCHY…   MILITARY, RELIGIOUS
…ORIGINS AND ASSUMPTIONS
…..KNOWLEDGE AND POWER AT TOP
…..ONLY THE FEW HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND POWER
IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGY AND INTERVENTION DESIGN

—REAL ORIGINS
…NEWTON
…LAWS OF PHYSICS AND MOTION
…THERMODYNAMICS AND ENTROPY

BUT…
…ORDER FOR FREE… BRIAN ARTHUR
…SOCIAL AND HUMAN SYSTEMS OVER TIME
..INNOVATE
..CREATE
..ADAPT

TWENTY CENTS AND SOME PICTURES

BLACK HOLES AND ELECTRONS
…NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE
…THOUGHT AS ENERGY QUANTA

NEW VIEWS
..MEAD AND ELIAS
..SENGE AND STACEY
..GESTURE AND RESPONSE
..TURN TAKING
..SENSE MAKING
..ITERATIVE
..RESPONSIVE PROCESS OF HUMAN RELATING

…OUR HUMAN PREFERENCE IS FOR STABLE, PREDICTABLE, CONTROLLABLE
BUT OOPS!!!!!
…MAKING A CAR
…DOING THE HOKEY-POKEY?



COMPLEXUS >> TOTALITY

TOTALITY OF DYNAMICS IN A SYSTEM

COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY>>> THE DIFFERENCE ENGINE

CHALLENGE FOR COMPLEX INTELLIGENT SYSTEM>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY ADAPT TO AND INFLUENCE THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

DARWIN>>> SURVIVAL OF THE MOST ADAPTIVE
DEMING>>LEARNING IS OPTIONAL.  SURVIVAL IS OPTIONAL

…ANALYSIS OF THE PARTS WILL NOT EXPLAIN BEHAVIOR OF THE WHOLE
…CAUSALITY ONLY KNOWABLE IN RETROSPECT
…NOT PREDICTABLE OR CONTROLLABLE

THE ONLY THING THAT CAN MODEL THE BEHAVIOR OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM IS THE SYSTEM ITSELF – SNOWDEN

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
SIMPLE RULES
FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM
SELF-ORGANIZING
EMERGENT
CRITICALITY
PATTERN RECOGNITION 
ATTRACTORS
BOUNDARIES
SENSITIVITY TO INITIAL CONDITIONS
RESONANT COUPLING
FRACTAL STRUCTURES
BIFURCATION
FEEDBACK LOOPS AND ITERATION
ADAPTIVE
LANDSCAPE FITNESS AS MEASURE OF SUCCESS

“IT IS IN THE EMERGENCE OF MEANING THAT WE FIND THE WILL TO ACT” – DICK KNOWLES

“ARTICULATE EMERGING THEMES, HAVE AN ENHANCED CAPACITY TO TAKE THE ATTITUDES OF OTHERS, DISPLAY GREATER SPONTANEITY, IN OTHER WORDS, AN ENHANCED CAPACITY TO THINK, FEEL, REFLECT, AND IMAGINE.” – PATRICIA SHAW

“THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH DOES HAVE ITS PLACE…WHEN THE SOLUTION IS KNOWN IN ADVANCE AND AN ESTABLISHED REPERTOIRE EXISTS TO IMPLEMENT IT

QUESTIONS FROM MEG WHEATLEY:
..DO PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO LISTEN AND SPEAK TO EACH OTHER?
..DO PEOPLE WORK WELL WITH DIVERSE MEMBERS?
..DO PEOPLE HAVE FREE ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHR THROUGHOUT THE ORGANIZATION?
..ARE PEOPLE TRUSTED WITH FREE ACCESS TO INFORMATION?
..DO THE ORGANIZATION’S VALUES BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER OR PUSH THEM APART?
..IS COLLABORATION TRULY HONORED?
..CAN PEOPLE SPEAK TRUTHFULLY TO ONE ANOTHER?

TOOLS AND METHODS

..RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE.  KEN HOMER, WORLD CAFE, ETC.
..PROCESS ENNEAGRAM.. DICK KNOWLES, TIM DALMAU MIDDLE WAY
..STACEY MATRIX… AGREEMENT X CERTAINTY
..SIMPLE RULE SETS
..POSITIVE DEVIANCE
..EOYANG TOOL SET CDE
..CYNEFIN FRAMEWORK…COGNITIVE EDGE METHODS
…..WALTUCK FRAMEWORK
..GOLDSTEIN ET AL… GENERATIVE LEADERSHIP
..SMART NETWORKS… JUNE HOLLEY AND VALDIS KREBS
…ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP, RON HEIFETZ ET AL


….WHAT DOES PSYCHOLOGY SEEK TO ANSWER AND ACHIEVE?
…SHORTEST FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE OMGWTF!?
…WHAT, SO WHAT, NOW WHAT
…EVER RAISE A CHILD?  EVER BEEN A CHILD?

REVISITING THE CULTURE OF THE SCHOOL AND THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE, BY SEYMOUR SARASON

..WHAT DO WE MEAN B THE CULTURE OF THE SCHOOL?
..CITING KENNETH WILSON… SYSTEMS MUST CREATE THE MECHANISMS FOR IMPROVING THEMSELVES (pg x)
..CITES EINSTEIN.. THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT CREATED A PROBLEM, CAN NOT SOLVE IT
..THE CULTURE OF THE SCHOOL IS “DIFFERENTIATED AND COMPLEX” (pg xiii)
..NO BETTER WAYS TO COMPREHEND CULTU THAN…SEE HOW IT RESPONDS (pg xiv)
..ANY ATTEMPT AT CHANGE INVOLVES FROM EXISTING REGULARITY (pg 3)
..BOUNDARY ISSUES AS NOTED IN “ENCAPSULATED SYSTEMS” (pg 13)
..RELATIONAL ROLE OF OBSERVERS (pg 14)
..AS IN SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS, SARASON NOTES EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES “PROMOTED MUTUAL ADAPTATION” (pg 76)
..NOTES THE ROLE OF POWER IN INFLUENCING RELATIONAL DYNAMICS (pg 89)
..BIG IDEA #1: MUST BE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT “SUSTAINS A PROCESS OF WILLING INQUIRY” (pg 366)
..BIG IDEA #2: TEACHERS AS A GROUP, MUST BE AFFORDED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCES AND OPPORTUNITIES (pg 369)

SARASON IS ALL ABOUT…
THE COMPLEX, INTER-RELATED ITERATIVE COMMUNICATION THAT EXCHANGES INFORMATION, DEVELOPS DIVERSE AND INNOVATIVE IDEAS, AND FOSTERS  MUTUAL ADAPTATION AND COLLECTIVE GROWTH

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

ARTICULATE THE VISION
SHARE THE VISION
INTERCONNECT EVERYONE
EXPERIMENT AND EXPLORE POSSIBILITY SPACE
SAFE TO FAIL IN THE COMPLEX DOMAIN
INNOVATE
COOPERATE MORE THAN COMPETE
LET GO OF WHAT DOES NOT WORK
LEARN TOGETHER
THINK TOGETHER 
INFLUENCE THE DIRECTION AND SPEED OF CHANGE

RESOURCES… JUST A FEW AUTHORS AND BOOKS HERE…
MARGARET WHEATLEY
GLENDA EOYANG
JEFF GOLDSTEIN ET AL
RALPH STACEY
LAURIE FITZGERALD
PATRICIA SHAW
DOUG GRIFFIN
MICHAEL MCMASTER
SHARON DALOZ PARKS
RON HEIFETZ, ET AL
DAVE SNOWDEN
JUANITA BROWN
DAVID BOHM
RICHARD KNOWLES
TIM DALMAU
JERRY AND MONIQUE STERNIN
KEN HOMER
PETER BLOCK
JOHN MCKNIGHT
JUNE HOLLEY
VALDIS KREBS
THE PLEXUS INSTITUTE
THE SOCIETY FOR CHAOS THEORY IN PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LIFE SCIENCES
COGNITIVE EDGE



Sent from my iPad

Posted in Change, Community, Complexity, Dialogue, Education | Leave a comment

The People Speak, the Leaders Listen

A few weeks ago I traveled to Washington, D.C. to serve as a facilitator at a unique event.  The Mayor had convened an event for citizens throughout the District to envision future policy and outcomes as part of his “One City” initiative.  http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5874/content_item/onecitysummit     This event was designed and run by America Speaks, with whom I had worked before.  You can learn more about their work at their website, www.americaspeaks.org  America Speaks uses a combination of unique technology, facilitation, and subject experts, in their “21st-century town hall meetings.”

For the One City event, preliminary work had generated a short list of priority issues.  Not surprisingly, these dealt with education, jobs, community and economic development.  Nearly 3,000 people had signed up, and nearly 2,000 actually came on the day of the event.  As a table facilitator, it was my responsibility to hold the safe space of dialogue open for everyone at my table.  I had a wonderful random group of citizens.  They came from different parts of the District, and had varied backgrounds in their own education, work, and lives.  Yet they shared a deep commitment to the District of Columbia, and to building a better future together.

My task was easy on this day.  My group spoke respectfully, from their hearts and minds.  They offered many meaningful ideas, which were captured along with all the others in the huge convention center room.  By the end of the day, through the combination of “theme team” idea sorters, and wireless polling, the entire roomful of ideas had been prioritized for each issue.  The entire day’s work was summarized in a report, with freshly-printed copies given to each participant as they left.  The Mayor assured the assembly that not only were their voices raised, but that the report assured their voices would be heard.

Now I, along with the thousands who came, will wait, and watch, and listen to what their leaders do next.

Posted in Change, Community, Complexity, Dialogue, Government Improvement, Networks, Social Responsibility | 1 Comment