Developing Leaders - Large Systems Change
The following letter was sent out to SEVERAL internet email lists. The
responses received were VERY helpful to our team and we are progressing on
a new leadership model to help people develop into the role of leading
quality efforts for the 90's and beyond so that USPS can be and remain
"the preferred supplier of Postal products and services" (part of our
mission). Responses are printed below.
The request...
"I'd like to think that you have noticed that the United States Postal
Service is working diligently to improve our service to our Customers, to
our Employees and our stewardship of our Business. I'd be even more
delighted if you had noticed some improvement in our service to you over
the past few years.
"Our improvement effort is called CustomerPerfect! and our intent is to
become a Customer-focused, process-driven organization. Much of our
formal training has the word quality in its title; however there is no
mistaking that this also addresses related issues as well. If you're in
OD, you might relate to Socio-technical systems where we do Environmental,
Technical and Social scans and then attempt to (re)design to minimize
variances. We ARE trying to make learning more a part of daily work and
we ARE working to become more facilitative and less traditional in how we
work with people. And, training is woven throughout. Bottom line - I
trust you are the right audience for this.
"Here is what I need from you and will feed back to all via summary:
1. What _proven_ methods do you know for training people to _lead_ an
improvement effort such as this?
2. What can you tell us about approaches to developing dramatically
different new skills, foreign to the culture? Note that you can reference
actual successes or actual failures, just please signify which.
3. Anything else you feel is relevant to our design team.
"As is the norm for activities such as this, we will not have the time to
do as much as we would like; when management finally buys in, time always
seems to shrink. I am, however, taking this opportunity to benchmark to
the extent possible. If your data is something that you are uncomfortable
sharing broadly as it perhaps places you or your organization in an
unfavorable light, please so note and send your response directly to me.
Your name and/or your company's/client's name will not appear in the
summary; I simply ask you to provide both to me as a way of giving
credibility to this data with our organization. I will only share what
you said with our organization unless a key leader asks the source; in
that case, I would give that person that specific information.
"Thank you in advance for your contributions. I would like to think that,
somehow, your inputs will eventually drive some improvement in the speed,
accuracy or cost o f your mail service. Yes, that is a faith journey, but
it is the one I signed on for."
Best regards,
Mike Townes
***** Response 1 *****
>1. What _proven_ methods do you know for training people to _lead_ an
>improvement effort such as this?
In my company, we are two years into the burn on 'improving the caliber of
leadership within the organization.' I don't want to dash your hopes, but
I think you may be setting your efforts up for failure. If you want a
-proven- method, then even one malcontent will undermine your credibility.
If you want to use -training- I think you have no chance at all.
We have adopted a 'graduate seminar approach'. If you'd like, I can send
you a couple page description of what we've tried to do (Can you work with
an MS Word file?) On paper, it looks great. We have worked now with
35-40 people in a labor intensive way -- we have a support team of four
who probably spend 20-35% of their time supporting each group of eight
participants over the course of the twelve-week run. Our 'success' rate
is probably something on the order of 70-80% (with a few 'failures' and a
couple 'incompletes'!)
>2. What can you tell us about approaches to developing dramatically
>different new skills, foreign to the culture? Note that you can
>reference actual successes or actual failures, just please signify
>which.
We spend a good deal of time talking about just what we mean by the words
'management' and 'leadership', and even how those differ from 'manager'
and 'leader'. (Essentially, we try to encourage the provision within a
work group of suitable 'leadership' from whatever people are qualified and
motivated to act as 'leader' in any given situation.) We discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of each. We talk some about skills (especially
communication skills) but we spend much more time on behavior -- not only
what does a respected leader do but also how does a respected leader
behave? And a whole lot of this involves working from the inside out.
It's not about adding skills onto to someone via training; it's about
discovering what it is that people value, what's important to them, how
they can contribute to the endurance of the organization, accomplishments
of its goals and striving toward achieving its vision.
We also talk about the recursive nature of individuals and the culture.
That is, you can't change the culture without changing the people, but you
can't change the people without changing the culture, either.
>3. Anything else you feel is relevant to our design team.
See the above offer of a longer response.
>As is the norm for activities such as this, we will not have the time to
>do as much as we would like; when management finally buys in, time always
>seems to shrink. I am, however, taking this opportunity to benchmark to
>the extent possible.
If you figure out how to benchmark 'The Quality of Leadership' in
organizations, you will have opened the door to a lucrative consulting
career (should you abandon the Post Office). We have as our unofficial
goal 'to make our organization the best led IT shop in the world.' Much of
the 'benchmarking' comes via anecdotal evidence, from our 'alumnae', from
their colleagues, from their work group members. With regard to
benchmarking in general, and its siren-song appeal to some managers, let
me close with this comment: ...the McNamara Fallacy: The first step is
to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes.
The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to
give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and
misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured
easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to
say that what cant be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is
suicide.
Charles Handy in The Age of Paradox
Michael Ayers, mbayers@mmm.com
ps If you choose to add any of this to your summary, you have my endorsement.
***** Response 2 *****
>I'd like to think that you have noticed that the United States
>Postal Service is working diligently to improve our service to
>our Customers, to our Employees and our stewardship of our
>Business. I'd be even more delighted if you had noticed some
>improvement in our service to you over the past few years.>
I wish that were so, but I notice that my third class mail arrives later
and later. Working with a local ASQ section, I found that our most recent
announcement mailed first class with an indicia, had mixed results. A
sample of 73 supposed recipients, 24 said that they did not receive the
item four weeks after the mailing.
When I worked for a direct mail operation (Columbia House)in the1960's, I
measured the mail system in the US and can tell you that there was a very
mixed service level at that time. I hope that your efforts will pay off.
To answer your questions
No single training can help. Whatever you do in the way of training is
useless if there is no follow-up to see that the training content is
applied. I would concentrate on that aspect if I were in your shoes.
The new postmaster looks at first glance as though he has a better grasp of
the realities of the service than did his predecessor. If so, the
leadership emanating from him will take care of your training needs. If
not, he must be trained first. Will he listen to you?
I hope that your efforts will bear fruit. the postal service is a key to
commerce and a significant part of the economy.
Bill Latzko, latzko@worldnet.att.net
***** Response 2 *****
[Deleted by LO host...]
***** Response 3 *****
1. What _proven_ methods do you know for training people to _lead_ an
improvement effort such as this?
At the risk of sounding too much like a vendor, as an independent
consultant I am affiliated with ODi, Organizational Dynamics, in
Burlington, MA. The company was the principal consultant to FedEx at the
time they became the first customer service business to win the Baldrige
Award. We have also worked with USPS in the past, although I'm not sure
in what specific area. In any case, we offer a program called "Managing
Process Improvement" (for which I am a facilitator) that aims specifically
at providing supervisors and managers with hands-on skills for work
process improvement. We are committed to technology transfer, so in a
case such as yours, we would automatically train your people to become
internal facilitators of the program instead of creating a situation in
which you were perpetually dependent on us. In addition, ODi has a
recently developed program similar to MPI specifically designed to build
QI leadership skills at the highest levels of your organization. More
details available on request.
I've spent more than 20 years doing OD in a wide range of settings, and
I've never found anything more effective or successful than MPI for the
kind of thing you seem to be interested in. Hope this helps, and I'll
look forward to your response. I'd be happy to provide case studies and
"satisfied customer" information if it would be useful.
Malcolm C. Burson, mooney@maine.maine.edu
***** Response 4 *****
Mike Townes had an interesting comment in his recent request for information:
> As is the norm for activities such as this, we will not have the time to
> do as much as we would like; when management finally buys in, time always
> seems to shrink.
I wonder where this expectation came from and whether or not this is the
type of thinking that they are attempting to change with this initiative.
If the organization cannot accept change then it is usually because the
benefits do not outweigh the cost. I have two questions for Mike:
1. What does wanting to do more than the time allows say about the
balance of form and function in your system?
2. Why does management buy in create an additional time restriction? Lon
Badgett, lonbadgett@aol.com
***** Response 5 *****
Mike - Are you able to contact foreign postal administrations? The UK
Royal Mail has what strikes me as an impressive program of continuous
improvement. I chair our local Quality Forum and Royal Mail are active
contributors to our program. They seem to have successfully energised
significant parts of a traditionally highly unionised labour force, with
facilitation and quality improvement teams involving front line delivery
staff. I don't have any e-mail contacts but one of the big search engines
might throw up something for you. Good luck.
Roger White, rl_white@hotmail.com, Aberdeen, Scotland
***** Response 6 *****
You are clear in your own mind that some governments focus their resources
with the intent to create learning societies. Who? I can only think of
Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, and I know many people who
would argue with even them.
And your second comment, that evidence suggests that business tools are
applicable to non-business sectors, I would be careful of a bit. yes, in
general business tools are applicable in non-profit organizations. In
government, though, I wonder if goals are not so dramatically different
that use of business tools would need to be seriously evaluated before
application. For example, businesses use various measures of
productivity, and productivity is a key measure of most businesses.
Productivity in education, though, would result in educating those most
likely to succeed, and that is a contradiction to the goals of many
states. So, to make it work, we end up with a lot of exceptions and
caveats, and in the end productivity is probably not a good measure for
government.
At least that's how I see it...
Rol Fessenden, 76234.3636@compuserve.com
***** Response 7 *****
>1. What _proven_ methods do you know for training people to _lead_
> an improvement effort such as this?
Action-learning. The object is that managers must learn how to act on the
system (and thus lead learning). Most often their heads are full of
unhelpful ('mass production' or 'command and control') assumptions - its
not their 'fault', its what they got taught. The first step is to take
action to understand their current organisation as a system, warts and
all. If taken well, the managers learn the extent of sub-optimisation and
its causes. They learn just how much their current thinking is central to
the problem. Then and only then do they become motivated to learn a
better way. So the second phase is learning to lead learning through
taking action - out in the processes with the people who do the work. As
they act they learn, and it becomes compelling for them to carry on
working this way because it gets them better results and better morale
(and its more fun). Then they start tackling the harder questions - e.g.
what measures to use, what measures to stop using, how to use them to
facilitate learning and better decision-making and so on.
Mike Townes also wrote:
>2. What can you tell us about approaches to developing dramatically
> different new skills, foreign to the culture? Note that you
> can reference actual successes or actual failures, just please
> signify which.
Action-learning is one example of what I like to call 'normative' designs
- designing to change norms. In my experience, most organisations attempt
to change management behaviour through education and training. I have
found it to be very inefficient. I believe the problem is that it fails
to tackle 'what's wrong with what we do now'. Education and training is
OK for the 'converted', but IMO we usually have a problem of conversion
hence we need normative designs.
In the last ten years we have seen the rise of psychotherapeutic methods
for changing managers behaviour. I wrote a paper on this (The Paradigm
Paradox) which, if my memory serves me well is still on my web site (or I
can e-mail it to anyone who wants it). In essence I argue that these
interventions miss the point (and are wasteful). The paradigm that needs
to change is 'how the work works'.
I can provide client cases where managers would attest to the efficacy of
the methods I describe and we run an annual conference where they talk
about what they are doing (called Transformation in Action). The
audio-tape of the January '98 conference is available. My team has
written a number of self-managed learning resources to aid managers in
action-learning. They are currently out on field trials. When they are
ready we will post information on our web site.
I wish our (UK) postal service was improving :-)
John Seddon, john@vanguardconsult.co.uk
***** Response 8 *****
In your category 3, if you are not already familiar with Jon R. Katzenbach,
"Real Change Leaders," Random House, 1996 (paperback), you might pick up a
copy. Although most of the organizations used as examples are private
sector, some are public sector, and the framework and concepts clearly
apply to both -- and the USPS. Chapter 5 deals specifically with process
(but I wouldn't just focus on that aspect; I think Katzenbach makes a
convincing case for a broader view point).
Bob Emmerichs, SPHR
shcir@erols.com
***** Response 9 *****
You can find some clues about how to drive culture change to one of
Continuous Improvement on my web site.
I have been applying and developing such a course for 10 years and it has
changed companies. First we change the managers priorities then the rest
will happen.
Continuous Improvement is all of the people all of the time finding what
is less than it should be and fixing it. If you are interested call
414-242-3345.
Eugene "Gene" Taurman, interLinx ilx@execpc.com, http://www.execpc.com/~ilx
***** Response 10 *****
Mike Townes wrote us quite a good letter, asking for help. Here are some
comments.
>I'd like to think that you have noticed that the United States
>Postal Service is working diligently to improve our service to
>our Customers, to our Employees and our stewardship of our
>Business. I'd be even more delighted if you had noticed some
>improvement in our service to you over the past few years.
The improvement is sketchy, but it seems to me that the PO has been a
victim of bad management for a long time and that the people have done
their best to make up for it. The problem seems to me to be very much in
the system, at a high level. For example, I notice that the glue used on
various labels is not adequate, so that when the lady at the post office
affixes stamps, she then adds a layer of transparent tape over it. Repeat
this millions of times per day, and it adds up!
Who redesigned the rolls of 32c stamps so that they no longer use
moisture? I have a very nice stamp dispensing device which will wet the
back of a stamp as it affixes it to my letters. Now I have to do it by
hand because there is no machine that will affix these new kinds of
stamps. When I mail a batch of letters, this costs me time and effort.
Who failed to design a feedback system, enticing customers who see things
like this to submit comment and be assured that the comments will go to
someone who will investigate, honestly, and take action.
>Our improvement effort is called CustomerPerfect! and our intent is
>to become a Customer-focused, process-driven organization. Much of
>our formal training has the word quality in its title; however there
>is no mistaking that this also addresses related issues as well. If
>you're in OD, you might relate to Socio-technical systems where we
>do Environmental, Technical and Social scans and then attempt to
>(re)design to minimize variances. We ARE trying to make learning
>more a part of daily work and we ARE working to become more facilitative
>and less traditional in how we work with people. And, training is
>woven throughout. Bottom line - I trust you are the right audience for
>this.
When you speak of making learning a part of daily work, just what are you
learning about? I believe that the most important learning task is to
LEARN HOW THE ORGANIZATION WORKS. With that as an objective, it makes
sense to investigate organization theory, theories about rewards, all
kinds of theories. There are important tools to be learned, mostly
quality improvement tools, beginning with deployment flow charting.
Tell us what is included in the training. Then we can offer much better help.
>Here is what I need from you and will feed back to all via summary: >
>1. What _proven_ methods do you know for training people to _lead_
> an improvement effort such as this?
I do not subscribe to the idea that you 'train' people to lead an
improvement effort. What you can do, in my opinion, is to teach a group
of people how to improve their situation. In the process, all of them
will study tools and techniques, and will learn about the socio-dynamics
from a study of their own interactions. Their lives are a rich source of
study. What it takes is a well trained consultant/facilitator/mentor,
who, over time, leads them to take charge of their own affairs. Leaders
emerge from such a process. They are unlikely to be the people you first
identified. Then through self study, discussion with others, and
consulting, they become better at leading improvement.
>2. What can you tell us about approaches to developing dramatically
> different new skills, foreign to the culture? Note that you
> can reference actual successes or actual failures, just please
> signify which.
In my studies of the transformation processes undergone by various
companies in Japan, the new skills, foreign to the culture, developed out
of experience with continuous improvement, done according to quality
methods. In my opinion, you do not start out with the objective of
developing dramatically different new skills. You start out with the
objective of improving things and plan to do so using quality methods.
The development of the people follows. Anything else would be
manipulative.
>3. Anything else you feel is relevant to our design team. >
>As is the norm for activities such as this, we will not have the time
>to do as much as we would like; when management finally buys in, time
>always seems to shrink.
The phrase "When management finally buys in" catches my eye. You write
about "Our Improvement Effort". Whose effort is it? Is it a response to
top management leadership or something else. Knowing which it is
important to anyone asked to help you.
Mike, all worthwhile improvements in the quality of life started with
faith. Nothing worthwhile is ever done without commitment and passion,
plus faith.
Myron Tribus, <mtribus@compuserve.com>
***** Response 11 *****
Having conducted a 1st round of Deming based training at for the area post-
office (that did include several postmasters) I offer the following to each
of the above:
1. Without the unqualified by-in and active support of the top, forget it!
Dr. D said this over and over and many still don't get the message. I saw
front line and 1st and even some 2nd level postal people get excited about
what we (and D taught), but senior mgt. NEVER accepted the basic
philosophy and rapidly squelched the efforts of any who did unless you can
cope with that element you will be training people (a I found out I was)
not in Total Quality but in Total Frustration!
2. Bring in those who have done it, let them SHOW their diversity, their
new skill, their totally new culture. And acknowledge that autonomous
teams will have the inherent rights to hire, discipline, buy, change
rules, etc. without having to climb 15 steps to the throne, bowing and
begging at each level. In a Deming based organization the pyramid must be
turned upside down and put the customers as the top layer, the
"front-line" next, serving the customer, and all staff/managers/unions
below them, serving the front line, helping them to serve the customer.
Want to know how far you are from Dr. D's concept. Pull out your org
chart and:
a. show me where the external customer is even on the chart, and
b show me how that chart doesn't serve as divisive with borders
(sometimes manned with guards) between the "divisions" (nice unifying
word), "sections" (another one), and "branches" (sheesh, how unifying),
but enhances free and open communication between organizational members
anywhere in the organization, and frees them from the "structure" (wow,
another of those "flexible" elements).
3. Yup, but there is not enough space here. Suggest that step number one
is for the Postal Service senior managers in D.C. to learn the SoPK and
then become the teachers (helpers can be brought in, of course, but nothing
conveys the importance of a message to people in any organization as
effectively as the senior officials giving their time (and I mean lots) to
convey, share, and lead the way on the journey to PK.
Del Nelson, TQNELSON@aol.com
***** Response 12 *****
1. I tend to agree with Myron. Leadership will emerge if given a baseline
tool-kit and encouragement/counsel from a skilled facilitator. The
organization needs to be prepared to recognize and reinforce this
leadership. On a side note, it may be wise to allow ideas for projects to
"bubble up" from the rank and file. This can increase buy-in on the part
of those who will actually be carrying out the results of the effort. Of
course, it will be important to involve these people in the planning along
with other levels of the organization. I have had some success with
blending line staff with folks generally considered to be their first line
supervisors, and involving higher level management as members of a
"guidance team" who do the boundary management for the working team. The
team will need to elect a leader after folks have had a chance to get to
know each other (likely after some "tools" training and a couple
organizational meetings. The facilitator can help with this process.)
2. It's easier if the team has some small successes initially. These
often take the form of "tweaking" the existing process in ways that please
customers. This differs from tampering in that all involved recognize up
front (and senior management sanctions) that these are only steps along
the way. The most current example I have is trying to convince a manager
that it may not be necessary to "inspect" 100% of treatment plans (could
be read "widgets") before giving them the "official" seal of approval. A
year ago, any mention of this would have led her to stop listening. Now
that she feels confident that the improvement effort is working, she is
more open to allowing analysis of "her" part of the process.
3. Be sure people understand what they are signing up for. This will be a
multi-year effort. Try as hard as you can to be honest with leadership
about the time frames involved in a culture change of this magnitude. Be
respectful of their need to "show progress" (which can be accomplished
through the "tweaks" mentioned above). As these accumulate, and as
positive feedback occurs around them, momentum will build to sanction the
larger approach. Finally, improvements to the "bottom line" will be the
most meaningful to leadership. If you can quantify the waste (or leakage,
or lost revenue, or hours spent on rework, however you need to frame it),
and begin to chip away at it, support should grow for revamping the
systems and processes in question so that wasteful practices are
eliminated.
Loren Bawn, LBAWN@dhs.state.ia.us
***** Response 13 *****
Hello Mike,
I am enclosing below a copy of a short article of mine published in the
Journal for Quality and Participation. I thought the article might be of
interest to you in reference to your use of the term "benchmarking." I
encourage you to open some discussion with Dr. Myron Tribus based on his
response to your request. I believe Dr. Tribus is one of the most
qualified people to offer the type of counsel you are requesting. I base
this partly on assistance and counsel Dr. Tribus has provided me for a
community project, the transformation of our local K-12 education system.
Our district has 7000 employees, 48,000 students and a budget of 380
million annually. The leadership of the school district have been sincere
learners in Dr. Deming's system of profound knowledge and fundamental
systemic change has begun in the school district.
I have attached several papers by Dr. Tribus and David Kerridge that I
believe are relevant to your request. I wish you well in your efforts to
improve your organization and service.
If we wear shoes like the Baldrige winners wear, will we be winners too?
The emphasis on benchmarking and role models embedded in the Quest for
Excellence conference, which celebrates the winners of the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award, makes us wonder if a lot of folks think
that plugging in an award winner's "best practice" will make them a winner
too. Not much harm is done when an impressionable teenage or pre-teen
basketball player thinks: "If I wear shoes just like Michael Jordan, I
will be able to play as well as he does." Parents may be out nearly $200
for a pair of sneakers, so that's not too big a problem. If a company
takes the same attitude toward benchmarking a Baldrige winner, and plugs
in a $2 million "best practice," a lot of workers and its community could
pay dearly when the new corporate sneakers result in layoffs.
We have nothing against the practice of benchmarking defined as the study
of a case history or onsite study to learn the theory used to improve a
process. We do not object to the study of an admired organization (a
quality role model) with theory. We have serious doubts however about the
wisdom and long-range results of management beliefs that resemble buying
the shoes of a great ballplayer (confidence in the merit of transferring
experience without theory from one system to another system). If you ask
what theories and methods helped you determine what changes to make to
your systems and processes you will stand a much better chance of
achieving the same measure of success as that of the award winners.
Our point is this: without leadership skilled in the use of theory,
prediction and scientific method your organization's chances of achieving
the success another has made is close to nil. The rapid pace of change in
all organizations and markets makes copying an example a high risk
strategy leading to great waste and lost opportunity for learning. In
short, a study without reference to the theory underlying the application
provides no predictable method for extension of the application or
improvement over time.
Our greatest obligation under scientific method is rigorous challenge of
our theory. Why would we wish to be aggressive in proving ourselves
wrong? The term "best practice" implies the "correct practice." Leaders
are under great pressure to be "correct" in all decisions. A great
obstacle to learning is created under this condition: if you must be
right, you can not learn. Learning occurs as often as not when we
discover we were wrong about something. The relationship of theory,
prediction and scientific method to learning is stated well by Dr. Deming
(no great fan of the Baldrige Award):
"It is extension of application that discloses inadequacy of a theory, and
need for revision, or even new theory. Again, without theory, there is
nothing to revise. Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without
theory, one has no questions to ask. Hence without theory, there is no
learning. Theory is a window into the world. Theory leads to prediction.
Without prediction, experience and examples teach nothing. To copy an
example of success, without understanding it with the aid of theory, may
lead to disaster. Any rational plan, however simple, is prediction
concerning conditions, behavior, performance of people, procedures, or
materials." 1
Are we suggesting no theory is employed in organizations recognized with
the Baldrige award? We are not. Our fear is leaders of organizations are
not clear about what theories they use, thus the organization is not clear
about what theories it uses. When theory is not clearly stated (written,
shared if a group or team is involved), many theories will be in use
within the group. The danger lies in the assumption that a single theory
is shared when in reality different theories are in use. Little learning
and a great deal of confusion should be the expected result.
The theories we encourage you to think about are the many simple theories
we all use frequently. Learning is accelerated dramatically as we become
aware of the theory we use, record our theory/prediction and become
comfortable with the concept of challenging our theories to increase
learning. Our principal concern is the rate and level of learning in the
organization, the rate and level of learning of the organization's
leadership.
1 Page 103, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education 2nd Ed.
W. Edwards Deming MIT/CAES 1994
) Excellence in Leadership 1997
Jim McKinley, leaders@gulftel.com
***** Response 13 *****
From: Don Strubeck <orgimpr@mth.org>
Myron's response to Mike Townes' request for feedback on the improvement
efforts of the US Postal Service leaves me a bit "edgy".
Myron says:
"improvement is sketchy, but it seems to me that the PO has been a victim
of bad management for a long time and that the people have done their best
to make up for it. The problem seems to me to be very much in the system,
at a high level."
I don't know about that. Having listened to interviews with the outgoing
Postmaster General [his name alludes me, and I'm too lazy this morning to
search for him], many innovations, service improvements, and customer-
focused options have come our way in the last decade from the Postal
Service. I'd suggest that we take a minute to reflect & consider the
following:
- 32 cents is damn cheap for anything to travel anywhere, that the
average envelope is 1.2 oz or less is inconsequential, that is happens AT
ALL is most important
- one LB package for $3, anywhere in the continental US in 2 to 3 days
is a DEAL, when compared to FedEx or UPS (which if a strike is on, may not
get through for two to three weeks -- link that to the union thread and
you see what I think about who really suffers when union & management done
have shared goals)
My company uses Express Mail from the Post Office routinely. It's cheap &
dependable. Let's face it, if someone needs something 'yesterday' then
they better have e-mail, all others get it in two to three days
- the greatest innovation, customer driven idea, whatever you want to
call it is the self-adhesive stamp. (Myron, forget you stamp dispenser -
- change your process!) Invented to assist the elderly which affixing
stamps, the NEW stamp is a great product, hands down. The Office that I
visit for personal mail now uses self adhesive delivery labels, so Myron,
wherever your at, they're either using up some old inventory, or they need
to update their system.
- Bar coding 9-digit software from Microsoft, and other manufacturers,
for letter addressing is standard operations where I work. Not only is it
more accurate, it saves money through pre-sorting, decreasing bulk rate
costs by 2 pennies a unit. And if you link to a US Mail postage machine,
your envelope is delivery ready right out of your printer! - When our
employees asked *if* a Postal Box and stamp machine could be located
inside our building, the answer was YES INDEEDY, and we can set them up
tomorrow!
These conveniences have benefited staff, visitors and the folks who live
near our building. I thought is was quite impressive that mail routes
could be changed in less than 24 hours! (You can't get a newspaper
carrier to change her/his route for at least a week.)
I love the Postal Service, but it does have its share of *people* issues,
how about the carrier that takes the promotional product samples home to
his/her house instead of delivering them to mine? Or the carrier who
leaves the registered mail receipt in my mail box saying that I can pick
up the registered letter at the post office after 4 PM, but never bothers
to bring it back to the counter, and leaves it in the truck? These are
not system or process issues; these are employees who DON'T CARE! No
process improvement is going to change laziness or a thieving habit. And
lets not talk about "going postal" with guns and co-workers or bosses.
I have great respect for the US Postal Service, and 99.99% letter carriers
are super. And I agree with you whole heartedly, < I do not subscribe to
the idea that you 'train' people to lead an improvement effort.> No, you
need to educate them; but that is a shared proposition - one side must
want to learn, while the other side wants to share knowledge & teach. If
either side balks: no education. Add to this the requirements of time,
environment, tools & materials, and education will happen & result in
shared goals & messages, very good results & superior outcomes.
I know exactly what Mike is getting at with his notion of "shrinking time
- following management buy-in". It is not that management isn't *with*
the improvement movement from the start, but once progress is made on some
front, many (not all) in management think that the small wins can be
transformed to big wins in very short time frames. Not always the case!
IMHO.
>all worthwhile improvements in the quality of life started with faith.
>Nothing worthwhile is ever done without commitment and passion, plus
>faith.
Hmm, Maybe? But, what about hard work? What about practice? What about
skill sets? Or would these emanate from "commitment, passion, & faith? I
don't know?
I know some passionate, committed surgeons who demonstrate a *faith -
liness* unmatched by the gods above! But as the song goes, "I'd never let
em cut on me!" I'll go for skills, hard work, practice and a track record
every time. Faith is a bit too quasi-religious for me. But hey, whatever
works for you is OK.
It isn't faith that gets the mail through in rain, show, sleet, or gloom
of night. It's hard work, fearlessness, practice and skill that gets the
mail to its destination. As Kevin Cosner said in The Postman, "Everyone
wants to get a letter to let them know they are SOMEONE."
Good luck Mike, I'm rootin for ya.
Don Strubeck
***** Response 14 *****
Don Strubeck makes some very good points and I cannot quarrel with them.
Just one note. When I spoke of the need for passion and commitment, I was
referring to the task of changing the way that things are done, converting
an organization from one paradigm to another. I was not referring to the
hard work, consistent effort, dedication that is required to implement good
work. These are two different ideas.
What I was referring to was the comment Dr. Deming used to make: "We are
being killed by best efforts."
When the enterprise is going the wrong way, it takes great courage to
stand up and say "This is wrong, we should be going the other way." Don's
comments are pretty much on the mark Myron Tribus
***** Response 15 *****
The Department of Labor has developed a large set of guidelines and
workbooks available on the internet. their process is called "Simply
Better! Continuous Improvement" and I think it sounds an awful lot like
what you are trying to do. You should probably read some of their stuff as
background. I took several ideas from their material and worked it into a
self assessment project and it came out great. Check out their site at:
http://esc.ttrc.doleta.gov/simplyb/
Steven W. May, May_@crane.navy.mil
- end -
--Mike Townes <mdtownes@iamerica.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>